Caselaw on attending assessments not proving ability to go to unfamiliar place

I’ve got rattling around in my head that there is a piece of caselaw on ESA to the effect that just because a client can attend a medical assessment (or other appointment) does not mean that they can go to an unfamiliar place. The Judge I believe reasoned along the lines that a claimant may be able to summon reserves of strength and build themselves up to going to a one off appointment to keep their benefit but this is different to getting up and going out everyday (to work for example) or voluntarily for some other reason.

I just can’t remember what the case was so now I can’t find it to cite it (assuming that I didn’t invent it in the first place!).

Any help gratefully received!!

There’s one that says going in a taxi is going accompanied (ie by the driver). How did the client get there? Take extra meds? Take a taxi? Suffer breakdown the following day? Sit and cry all the way on the bus?

in other words was her journey reliable—did she have to go the day before (taking 5 hrs) so that she was calm enough to do the journey in only 2 hs on the day etc

Did you mean this one: - CE/1537/2013

In considering what amounts to social engagement in activity 16 in schedule 2 and activity 13 in schedule 3, Judge Gray refers to CE/4183/2012. She agrees that it is insufficient to use mere attendance at a medical – or for medical treatment generally – as definitive of an ability to engage in social contact. She goes on to say –

‘... to effect treatment for a mental health condition, one may be able to summon up reserves to attend such an appointment that may not be sufficient in relation to a test which is of the ability to perform an activity reliably and repeatedly.’ (paragraph 18)

I think you remembered it pretty well!

CE/1537/2013

Also check out wcainfo.net for some more cases including the taxi driver one.

Is there a similar bit of caselaw which applies to PIP?

We have had a client refused mob component of PIP purely on basis that he attended assessment. The same argument also used to deny points for “mixing with other people”. The client has severe mental health problems, and only attended the assessment because he knew he would lose benefits should he fail to attend.

Thanks all!  CE/1537/2013 is exactly the one I was looking for. Glad that I wasn’t making things up, I was sure it existed I just couldn’t find the right search terms to get it to show obviously!