Blind and HRM. Supersession?

I have a client who is on HRC and LRM due to epilepsy and visual problems following a brain haemorrage. He was registered blind in september 2000 and has the certificate to back this up. As you all probably know there was a change in DLA regs in April that can entitle claimants to HRM if they are blind. The client informed the disability benefit centre that he was registered blind and asked them to sort it out. He has now been sent a supersession form to complete however i have had to advise him that his award will be looked at again and his award may be reduced. (unlikely but ive seen it before). He does not want to go thru the process of revision requests, loss of DLA and possibly waiting 6-8 months for a tribunal.
Anyway - down to the question : There has been no change of circumstances in his health, merely in the DLA regs, so surely a supersession is not required in this instance. Is there not a requirement for the DBC to automatically up his award to HRM if they receive medical evidence that he is registered blind? I am sure if he rang them up and said he had no night time care needs they would drop his award to MRC without a supersession so does it work both ways? Any advice about how to proceed would be appreciated.

The test is visual acuity of less than 3/60 or 3/60 or more but less than 6/60, together with a complete loss of peripheral visual field and a central visual field of no more than 10 degrees in total

Being registered blind is not sufficient. Your client must also meet the requirements of DLA Reg 12(1A)(a) which concerns loss of visual acuity. It is unlikely that completing a supersession form will elicit the specific information required. A statement of his/her loss of acuity from an optician, eye hospital etc should be sufficient evidence for a decision maker.

Thanks folks. I will ask him for a statement from his neurologist and/or consultant to support his HRM if appropriate and send it off. Hopefully that should suffice without the supersession palaver.

It is a supersession as there is no power to change the award without making out a supersession ground.  A change in the law is a change of circumstances and thus a ground for supersession.  However, I agree with Peter about the way to go.

It’s also worth looking at the form they sent, if it is a DLA434 form then you only need to return the Part 1 (admin) and the mobility section (with the evidence suggested above). You are not required to send the care section back if the client does not believe care needs have changed.

The cheeky beggars have sent a new claim form (DLA1) Adult. I will apply for HRM by sending medical reports ref his visual acuity first and only fill in supersession form if they actually send me one.

There is no lawful requirement for a form of any description to be completed as it is not a claim.  Reg 6(4) of the D&A Regs allows the Department to request further information or evidence from the claimant in support of the supersession application but is silent as to its form. 

There is absolutely nothing preventing the claimant simply submitting the visual acuity test results with a covering later with supporting information and stating “no other relevant changes of circumstances with regards to either component” and insisting on a decision.  The Department must make a decision and cannot just sit on the application until a form is completed.

Thanks Nevip (again) and to all other people who responded.

My client has retinitis pigmentosa which is degenererative.  He was already receiving LRC and LRM based on an assessment he had ten years ago. Did they even refer him to an opthalmologist? Did they heck so we’re having to appeal it. Ridiculous.

Yes that’s what they did it with my client’s brother

Would you just clarify PDCS please alban

lol of course, I knew the DCS but forgot about the Pensions bit

Hi all,

I have a case that’s just landed on my doorstep which is already waiting for an appeal date. I haven’t seen the papers as yet but have had sight of a letter from the Consultant Opthamalmic Surgeon submitted with the appeal that states that the appellant has light perception only in his right eye, and best corrected visual acuity of 3/60 in his left. Apparently the DM is treating this has a case of 3/60 to 6/60 and refusing on the basis that the field of vision criteria are not met.

The regs specify that it is visual acuity across both eyes when a person has both eyes that is relevant. So surely this means that 0/60 (is that correct for light perception only)  in right and 3/60 in left is less than 3/60 across both eyes, and qualification should be clear cut?

Anybody know what is the correct method to ‘average’ differing visual acuities between the eyes?

I plan to contact the consultant for clarification.

Thanks for the clarification alban RNIB

...and thanks from me as well as it’s relevant to my client’s appeal

Can you help with another question alban RNIB?

The client’s registration is on the basis of ‘visual acuity between 3 / 60 and 6 / 60 with a severe reduction of field of vision, such as tunnel vision’.

Is a ‘severe reduction of field of vision, such as tunnel vision’ for registration purposes less stringent than the DLA criteria of ‘complete loss of periphal vision and a central visual field of no more than 10degrees in total” so that not all claimants registered under this category can be confident of qualifying for HR mobility?

I understand that people whose registration is on the basis of ‘visual acuity of 6 / 60 or above but with a very reduced field of vision, especially if a lot of sight is missing in the lower part of the field’, cannot qualify for HR mob DLA via this route.

From the consultant’s letter I’ve seen I understand the CVI has just a tickbox to indicate that the ‘severe reduction of field of vision’ registration criteria are met. His letter confirms that it was ticked. (edit I’ve found a speciment CVI and know it was the extensive loss of visual field box that was ticked).

Many thanks.