Normal Life Test

Although Levenson (R(DLA) 2/02) relates to DLA, I use it for PIP. Part of it says that the issue should be what help someone needs to live as far as possible a normal life.

Does anyone know if there is a specific “normal life” Upper Tribunal case for PIP?

Many thanks

I’d suggest you look at how the issues around living a limited lifestyle are addressed in this case:
https://administrativeappeals.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=4719

Thank you Elliott, that’s super useful as always.

Cheers

Tim

Or equally :-

The PIP descriptors measure the level of disablement, and it is important that the extent of a person’s disability is captured in the context of normal daily life and not a sheltered version of it that the disabled person has imposed upon themselves to make their life easier.

(para 47)

https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/eg-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip-2017-ukut-101-aac

It turned out to be an important decision in clarifying beyond doubt a key point but I must say it’s a decision that in other respects I actively dislike.

A perfect storm of what appears to be someone with fairly advanced retinal atrophy repping themselves; having to later clarify poor information on a form and then coming up against a UT judge who often makes great decisions but consistently gets things wrong when it comes to sensory loss. The whole “they work in a care home so must be able to socially engage” aspect sticks in the throat.

In PM v SSWP (PIP) [2017] UKUT 0154 (AAC), Judge Gray held at [ 20]

To the extent that this definition was interpreted to exclude the appellant’s choice as to how often she would ‘move around’ (in the words of the schedule; I might use the expression ‘walk’) and replace that choice with an objective test of how often she needed to do so, that was wrong. I reiterate my observations in EG cited above. If the tribunal looked at the concept ‘repeatedly’ on one walk to a local shop and then back home each day, which an appellant could accomplish at one stretch, perhaps because it felt that she would be able to pick up what she needed on such an outing, that would be to assess her on an overly limited basis: she may wish to walk on to the park, or meet a friend, and why should she not? That extended walk may necessitate rest periods thus the concept of repeatedly is wider. Using Judge Jacobs point in relation to dressing, to which I also refer above, a tribunal does not need to accept the genuineness of an extreme routine put forward in an apparent attempt to “generate” points, but if it is accepted that somebody would like to walk further or more frequently, and such activity is not inherently unreasonable then that wish should be factored in to the calculation of how often the activity being assessed is reasonably required to be completed. To address this matter otherwise would be to calculate entitlement upon the tribunal’s view of what the disabled person’s activities should be. Directly in the PIP context I draw support for that proposition from the comments of Upper Tribunal Judge Hemingway in CE-v-SSWP (PIP) [2015] UKUT 643 (AAC) at [34]:

It seems to me it makes no sense to say a person is able to perform an activity as often as reasonably required if they cannot do so for a part of the day in which they would otherwise reasonably wish or need to do so. (my emphasis).

I pick up on a different aspect of that comment in my closing remarks. I also consider pertinent the dicta of Lord Slynn of Hadley in Secretary of State –v- Fairey (R(A) 2/98); although made in the context of the Attendance Allowance scheme the assessment was of attention “reasonably required”.

‘ In my opinion the yardstick of a “normal life” is important; it is a better approach than adopting the test as to whether something is “essential” or “desirable”. Social life in the sense of mixing with others, taking part in activities with others, undertaking recreation and cultural activities can be part of normal life. It is not in any way unreasonable that the severely disabled person should want to be involved in them despite his disability. . What is reasonable will depend on the age, sex, interests of the applicant and other circumstances. To take part in such activities sight and hearing are normally necessary and if they are impaired attention is required in connection with the bodily functions of seeing and hearing to enable the person to overcome his disability. As Swinton Thomas LJ in the Court Of Appeal said “Attention given to a profoundly deaf person to enable that person to carry on, so far as possible in the circumstances, an ordinary life is capable of being attention that is reasonably required.”