Bonner Volume 3

recently represented a deaf young adult at tribunal. got a partial award of LRM and seeking MRC in addition now. Just had the statement of reasons back from a tribunal. the Judge has quoted the following to me and I do not have the reference book to read it in, can anyone help please?

“We considered whether there is any attention needed by anyone in providing interpreting services for XXXXX. Based on the evidence of XXXXX, we found that no such attention is required. We noted section 1-233/234 ( pages 154 – 157) of Bonner Volume 3 and the guidance given there by the commissioners ( as they were then) in the case referred to on those pages”.

Also very concerned that most claimants would not be able to access this reference and feel it is unfair of the Judge to quote the reference without giving the detail.

thanks

I think it means vol 1 (the one that includes DLA). By my count there are 17 cases cited on those pages so it ain’t a lot of help! Is that a written statemnt of reasons or summary decision? It looks appealable to me if the former, as no adequate explanation ahs been given.

In R(DLA) 2/02 the commissioner stated that: -

From the above discussion I derive the following propositions of law in connection with the application of section 72(1)(a)(i) and section 72(1)(b)(i):

•  the operation of the senses is a bodily function and a defect in the senses leads to disability in connection with which attention might be required
•  the test is whether the attention is reasonably required to enable the severely disabled person as far as reasonably possible to live a normal life
•  the aggregate of attention that is reasonably required includes such attention as may enable the claimant to carry out a reasonable level of social activity
•  what is reasonable will depend on the age, sex, interests of the applicant and other circumstances
•  how much attention is reasonably required and how frequently it is required are questions of fact
•  attention in connection with bodily functions includes unusual efforts reasonably required to attract the attention of the deaf person in order to communicate with her. Unusual in this context means steps that are not or would not be required in respect of attracting the attention of a person in the same environment who is not deaf
•  a person is not providing attention when communicating with a deaf claimant by means of reasonably fluent signing unless communication is particularly slow and difficult
•  if communicating through an interpreter is significantly more efficient or effective than communicating through writing, or trying to converse with a person who has to shout loudly, then it might well be that the services of an interpreter are reasonably required even if initiating the communication or conducting a two-way conversation does not itself constitute attention
•  help required to undertake activities other than those “concerned with the relatively mundane everyday activities of functioning as a human being in ordinary life” does not count as attention for these purposes
•  although, in order to count as attention, any service provided must be of a close and intimate nature involving personal contact carried out in the presence of a disabled person, in the case of a deaf person this includes communication between that person and an interpreter
•  for these purposes there is no significant difference between the interpretation of the written word and the interpretation of speech.

I have used this decision a few times.  Tribunals seem to like it.