PIP Mobility - evidence used by First-tier Tribunal

Tribunals must consider any evidence available to them, so yes, I’d say it’s reasonable for them to rely on this evidence.

2.5mph is within the scope of normal/average walking speed, and she can apparently both maintain this speed for a time period and with some repetition. If anything the tribunal’s maths are off - 5 mins at 2.5mph is over 300 metres.

That being said, treadmills are materially different to walking on a paved surface (the latter being the actual test). They have handholds, and are smooth, etc.

The question you should be asking is how much ‘weight’ they should attach to this evidence when comparing it to other evidence. I.e. it comes down to the particularities of your client’s conditions.

Walking speeds found by Road Research Laboratory - see attachment

Va1der - 12 January 2023 01:41 PM

Tribunals must consider any evidence available to them, so yes, I’d say it’s reasonable for them to rely on this evidence.

2.5mph is within the scope of normal/average walking speed, and she can apparently both maintain this speed for a time period and with some repetition. If anything the tribunal’s maths are off - 5 mins at 2.5mph is over 300 metres.

That being said, treadmills are materially different to walking on a paved surface (the latter being the actual test). They have handholds, and are smooth, etc.

The question you should be asking is how much ‘weight’ they should attach to this evidence when comparing it to other evidence. I.e. it comes down to the particularities of your client’s conditions.

This is on the money.

You need to view the reasons as a whole. Walking ability on a treadmill is plainly capable of being probative of walking ability more broadly and the figures given by the tribunal do tend to support its conclusions, but equally there could be considerations which mean that it is not a useful indicator (for example if the claimant exerts themselves considerably in doing their exercises and is exhausted afterwards so that it’s not reliable).

You would expect that the tribunal would take account of any considerations which were raised and address the treadmill evidence in the context of any other evidence of walking ability.

It probably won’t be something this tribunal is faulted for, but I am very dubious about taking literally any claims of things lasting ‘5 minutes’. This seems to me to be the smallest unit of time people generally think in. If traffic lights appear stuck and I’m sitting there like a lemon for 20-30 seconds I think of it in my head as 5 minutes.

I don’t know if they still are, but at one point assessors asked people ‘how many minutes can you walk for’, which was pretty much guaranteed to lead the answer 5 minutes no matter what the limitation.

Very true. I include all of us in this but my general approach is that humans are terrible at both assessing risk, time and distance.

Mr Finch - 17 January 2023 10:41 AM

It probably won’t be something this tribunal is faulted for, but I am very dubious about taking literally any claims of things lasting ‘5 minutes’. This seems to me to be the smallest unit of time people generally think in. If traffic lights appear stuck and I’m sitting there like a lemon for 20-30 seconds I think of it in my head as 5 minutes.

I don’t know if they still are, but at one point assessors asked people ‘how many minutes can you walk for’, which was pretty much guaranteed to lead the answer 5 minutes no matter what the limitation.

Generally very true, but not in this circumstance IMHO. Treadmills have timers, specifically to give measurements for just this purpose.

If I was to, I might argue that a treadmill is an unrealistic comparison to normal walking because people push themselves during exercise, often far past what might be considered an acceptable standard, or even safely.
Surrendering after 5 mins on a treadmill might equate to, say, 2 minutes in day to day activities.
But, again, it comes down to what difficulties this particular client faces.

I use a cross trainer and a 4 or 5 mile walk each day to keep my crumbling L3 to L5 and core strength relatively healthy and as an alternative to the many sessions of physio it took to get me back upright. In the past (and still occasionally) I have used a treadmill as an alternative to the walk and I would say that a tribunal attempting to draw parallels with walking outside of the home are on a sticky wicket.

At my worst the treadmill effectively walked me for 10 minutes i.e. it had to be set at a pace which was within my capabilities at that time and which forced one leg in front of the other but didn’t actually require any exertion from me at all. There is a world of difference between being on a treadmill which propels you and being on a treadmill where you match it or feel stronger than it.

The Normal Life Test would be useful to see if the person could repeatedly walk this distance. If they were always a very active person, always pottering about, but can now only do some walking on the treadmill, then they can not repeatedly walk 20/50/200 metres.

I got help about the normal life test on this previous thread.

https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/18832/