Is a Kindle an aid for reading? - PIP Activity 8

I just wondered if anyone has been successful in arguing that a Kindle is an aid for reading under PIP descriptor 8(b)?

I have a client who can only read using large print on a Kindle as he has a cataract in one eye that affects his sight. He also had his font sized increased on his computer screen when at work. No sight test was carried out by the HCP yet a decision was made that he had no problems in this area.

The MR decision states “You said you need aids to be able to read due to needing glasses and large print. To need an aid a device must be used to help you complete the activity. Please note that large print and glasses are classified as unaided for the purposes of PIP. You report that you read your kindle and have a job that involves reading from a screen. This suggest you can read. Therefore we have decided that you can manage this activity without help”.

My understanding is that this activity is determined with reference to ‘standard size text’ and most aids which would score points under this descriptor, such as a magnifying glass, are intended to increase the text size to a larger print size. I cant seem to find a definitive answer to this though either in the relevant case law or the PIP Assessment Guide.

Andy

I would say a Kindle could be
“aid or appliance”- (a) means any device which improves, provides or replaces [the claimant’s] impaired physical or mental function
increasing the font size on his kindle or pc improves his impaired vision and is directly connected to the activity

has your client had an assessment for disability adjustments at work - that could be good evidence

I agree with how you have analysed it Janine. He is using the Kindle’s zoom function because he struggles with reading “standard size font” which is what the activity is testing. If it were a physical book, he would be achieving the same result with a magnifier which is obviously an aid.

The ability to read large print is irrelevant to deciding if descriptor 8b applies. That is because the question is whether they need an aid to read complex written information, and complex written information is defined as more than one sentence in standard sized text. If we start asking whether the claimant can read large print letters, then we are no longer looking at “complex written information” as defined.

Put another way - if the claimant was faced with needing to read a couple of sentences in standard sized text, what would he do? If the answer is that - one way or another - he would use an aid to zoom into it and make it easier to read, then he gets the 2 points.

Obvious questions. Cataract in one eye? So, the other eye? Presumably he’s not registered SI? Is the cataract operable?

Absolutely no doubt a Kindle is an aid/appliance in principle in this context at all but if one eye is okay then that begs some further questions.

I’d also be very careful as regards what kind of Kindle. Many models have poor backlighting and the acuity of the fonts gets considerably worse the more you increase the font size. They are an inferior reading device compared to say an iPad when it comes to sight impairment. Client may say they use one. They often just have one and it doesn’t get used at all after the first few tries.

Increasing the font size on a PC is a meaningless phrase. It needs much added detail. There is a facility within Windows 10 for example to “make text bigger”. It’s not found within the accessibility options and that’s because it only applies to system fonts. So, things like icon text or file menu text. It wouldn’t make any difference to the size of text in emails or the size of text in MS Word for example. Those would need to be setup separately. So, within the idea that he has an increased font size on his PC lie a myriad of options which if activated would very much mean he was using accessibility options without which he could likely not function reliably i.e. in terms of sharp focus; missing words, sentences or even paragraphs or typing accurately at speed.

Also very easy to forget that this activity is signs, symbols and words and not just words. Cataracts can cause all manner of weird issues with trying to decipher symbols or read numbers.

To give this some kind of perspective. I’m registered SI and have no formal accessibility options enabled on my PC. However, I have worked through the various font menus (there are lots) and so most of what I do is 16 point Calibri font. To set that up across email, apps, browsers etc.  takes approximately half a day and often more. As you can imagine I’m a big big fan of when we get OS updates. Windows always tells you it will retain your settings. Not those it doesn’t. So, if this client says they have a bigger font I’d say there is much to delve into and doing so will reveal to DWP that what they think is probably just a button press is a whole pile of work around accessibility.

Finally, in most circumstances a HCP absolutely should not be conducting any kind of vision tests and I certainly wouldn’t lose any sleep at the lack. Two reasons.

Firstly their guidance tells them that if they already have up to date functional data then they don’t have to conduct further tests. So, if there was an up to date script in there for specs or a consultants report giving Snellen, Jaeger and other results then the HCP has no business conducting such tests.

Secondly, most tests require a degree of precision and should only be conducted within certain environments. There is ample evidence that when HCPs do such tests they have no clue what they’re doing and wholly disregard considerations such as the correct distance and height for Snellen charts; appropriate levels of luminance and so on. Wales Council for the Blind picked up on this a while back and it should have become a cross border thing but people with sensory loss are arguably much bigger underclaimers than people with mental health issues so there’s no great momentum to fix such issues. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-48682106

Hope that helps. My starting point here though would be the other eye.