× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

This Driving issue

Geri-G
forum member

Welfare reform team - North Ayrshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 91

Joined: 4 June 2013

Was at an appeal for a client who has Mental Health issues, and have he SOR. There was a PO at tribunal who stated that there was an old Commissioners decision stating that if you can drive, you do not need prompting to complete every day tasks.

Furthermore-he used UKUT 0531to state that anyone who can drive cannot get activity 11 (planning and following a journey).

I already have permission to appeal to the UT on other errors of law, however would like to address this issue.

Thanks to anyone who can help.

Vonny
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Social Inclusion Unit, Swansea

Send message

Total Posts: 486

Joined: 17 June 2010

this oldish case refers to an older case about driving

File Attachments

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

As the case posted by Vonny makes clear, it isn’t the case that anyone who can drive is automatically excluded from DLA or PIP although an ability to drive can obviously be relevant. There are a couple of older threads discussing how the bald fact that “X can drive”  doesn’t necessarily tell us a huge amount about their functioning.

But if you are looking at Upper Tribunal proceedings, it doesn’t matter a great deal what nonsense the PO has submitted to the Tribunal - unless the Tribunal has accepted those submissions.

If the SOR suggests that the Tribunal took the view that the simple fact that the appellant can drive was fatal to the appeal, then that’s an error of law.

Geri-G
forum member

Welfare reform team - North Ayrshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 91

Joined: 4 June 2013

Elliot Kent - 13 November 2018 06:10 PM

As the case posted by Vonny makes clear, it isn’t the case that anyone who can drive is automatically excluded from DLA or PIP although an ability to drive can obviously be relevant. There are a couple of older threads discussing how the bald fact that “X can drive”  doesn’t necessarily tell us a huge amount about their functioning.

But if you are looking at Upper Tribunal proceedings, it doesn’t matter a great deal what nonsense the PO has submitted to the Tribunal - unless the Tribunal has accepted those submissions.

If the SOR suggests that the Tribunal took the view that the simple fact that the appellant can drive was fatal to the appeal, then that’s an error of law.

Brilliant-I brought this up at the tribunal and was ignored. So error in law straight away (listened to tape back yesterday)

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

Elliot Kent - 13 November 2018 06:10 PM

it isn’t the case that anyone who can drive is automatically excluded from DLA or PIP although an ability to drive can obviously be relevant.

to say that would be to say that those physically disabled in some way, but who can drive, couldn’t get pip.  which would be wrong

i appreciate that your case was about his mental functioning/learning disability/inability to read/etc, a different thing.  but the bald sentence makes it plain that the suggestion has to be incorrect when put in that way

past caring
forum member

Welfare Rights Adviser - Southwark Law Centre, Peckham

Send message

Total Posts: 1116

Joined: 25 February 2014

Geri-G - 14 November 2018 11:29 AM
Elliot Kent - 13 November 2018 06:10 PM

As the case posted by Vonny makes clear, it isn’t the case that anyone who can drive is automatically excluded from DLA or PIP although an ability to drive can obviously be relevant. There are a couple of older threads discussing how the bald fact that “X can drive”  doesn’t necessarily tell us a huge amount about their functioning.

But if you are looking at Upper Tribunal proceedings, it doesn’t matter a great deal what nonsense the PO has submitted to the Tribunal - unless the Tribunal has accepted those submissions.

If the SOR suggests that the Tribunal took the view that the simple fact that the appellant can drive was fatal to the appeal, then that’s an error of law.

Brilliant-I brought this up at the tribunal and was ignored. So error in law straight away (listened to tape back yesterday)

Not sure about this.

It is what is in the statement of reasons that counts. There are plenty of times I have made submissions on a particular point to which a tribunal hasn’t responded during a hearing** but it’s then become plain from the actual decision that they were accepted. And it’s also the case that a tribunal can accept a rep’s submissions on a particular point whilst disallowing an appeal for different reasons. Until you have the statement of reasons, can see precisely what the tribunal made of the competing arguments and can determine whether the tribunal relied in any way on the PO’s subs on the issue to support its decision, you cannot be sure there’s an error of law.

** Usually, but not always, this occurs with less experienced/confident tribunals and is more likely to happen when there is a PO there. More ‘difficult’/technical appeals (overpayment, right to reside, living together as husband and wife) are heard by judges sitting alone and they need a ticket to be able to do this (i.e. they have been assessed as having the technical competence and experience) - all of which means they are far more prepared to entertain cut and thrust between a PO and rep and also more prepared to give an indication of their thinking during the proceedings - i.e. they will tell you or the PO that they are persuaded by an argument on a particular point, explain why and then ask whether the other party has anything to say that might change their mind…...