Severe Mental Impairment

Hi all

Does anyone have a full copy of R(DLA)3/98 regarding SMI.

If so can you please fax to 01823 448966.

Thanks in advance.

Chaos

Hi Duncan

Thank you very much indeed.

Chaos

Can anyone direct me to any caselaw (SMI related) that may give any hope to challenging the ‘30 year’ rule?

I am looking to challenge the ‘arrested development’ section of the legislation and the DMA at Leeds sent some information which contained the sentence “..entitlement can continue throughout life and can be applied in the first instance to a person who is over 30” however they state this is from R(DLA)3/98, which thanks to Duncan’s reply I have read and this is not contained within this decision at all.

Any ideas?

Thans

Hi Chaos

What Commissioners have said is that brain stops developing at age 30 so, in order to show arrested development, condition has to have started before that - see CDLA/156/94, CDLA/393/94 and CDLA/8353/95 (which became R(DLA) 3/98).

These decisions are available in rightsnet toolkit -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/toolkit/disability-living-allowance/

Doesn’t at all meant that no entitlement under that provision until age 30, so DWP has got it wrong if that’s what they’re saying.

cheers Ros

Hi Ros

I am aware of the case law quoted however the DMA at Leeds - whilst defending a suggestion that the ‘under 30’ is age discrimination have - quoted that HRM via SMI can apply in “the first instance to someone over 30”, then they have put (see R(DLA)3/98) which I know says nothing of the sort.

Our client is trying to argue that medical science has moved on since it was established in R(DLA) 2/96 that the age at which a brain is fully developed was 30. And I was wondering what on earth the DMA were quoting and whether it may help?

Chaos

hi again

sorry but i seem to have come over a bit confused here - 

just to be clear, is your client under or over 30, and how old were they when the cause of the ‘arrested development’ happened?

cheers ros

Hi Ros

Sorry, I’m not explaining this well!

The client was just over 30 when he suffered ‘arrested development’ so at the appeal hearing the following arguments were raised;
1. The legislation does not refer to a specific age, and
2. Medical science has evolved in the last 15 years sufficient to bring in to doubt the findings in R(DLA)2/96
3. Age discrimination

In response to argument 3 the DWP sent a submission which included the sentence I referred to in my previous post but I have no idea where they sourced the quote.

The client’s rep is trying to challenge the validity of ‘30 years’ as being the threshold.

Hope that is clearer.

hi - i think they’re just trying to say that doesn’t discriminate against over 30s as it can be awarded, for the first time, to someone over 30 as long as their condition started before they were 30, and using case law to show that.

i don’t know of any other case law they could have been thinking of - anyone else got any ideas?