DLA for severe agoraphobia - outcome of case

Can anyone help or let me know if they have come across a similar situation?

I’ve had a recent client who has tried to apply for DLA previously but been turned down.  I applied for it again on the basis of such severe agoraphobia that she has not been able to walk further than a couple of hundred feet from her front door in the past five years.  She has suffered with this for 30 years and it has manifested itself in different social phobias during this time.  I would have thought that she may be eligible for LR mobility but she has been turned down again.

However, Disability Rights Handbook states that ‘people who have mental health problems such as agoraphobia are most likely to qualify.’

What my client is particularly upset and offended by is the following sentence in her decision letter - ‘even with someone to guide or supervise you, you would not be able to walk outdoors.’  Surely this statement contains the very reason she should receive mobility component! 

She feels that DWP are saying that as she does not go outdoors anyway due to her condition, it doesn’t matter whether she can walk outdoors physically or not.  She would like me to request a re-consideration which I am happy to do, but would prefer feedback on this first.  Thanks.

Hi Rachel

There is a provision in the reguations to prevent the mobility component being paid to someone who, if I remember the phrasing correctly “Is unable to benefit from enhanced facilities for locomotion” (how kylie lol)

ie you must be able to get out (I think it’s aimed at not paying it to people who are in a PVS or such like)

I don’t see how it’s arguable in your case however - as you have already mentioned she gets out for 200-300 yards/metres, and in fact you could suggest that with someone assisting her she is more likely to in time extend her ability to get out and about perhaps with encouragement/reassurance to make gradual increases in distance.

There appears to be conflicting case-law on people for whom guidance/supervision wouldn’t make any practical difference to their ability to walk out of doors. CDLA/42/94 took the line that it would be outlandish to exclude someone unable to walk on unfamiliar routes even with guidance /supervision. The converse was held in CDLA/2364/95 and CSDLA/12/2003, the former an agoraphobia case, which held that if the person cannot be persuaded to walk out of doors at all they would be excluded from LRM
That case was followed in a Northern Ireland Court of Appeal case Mangan v DSD [2005] NICA which said that the claimant ahs to show that his walking ability on unfamiliar routes would be enhanced by guidance/supervision.
There is however also authority that if the laimant can only manage familiar routes with guidance/supervision they satisfy the test without the need to look further at unfamiliar routes.

Just to firm up Ariadne’s point a little, in Mongan the court said “there must be some ability to walk but the claimant must require some supervision or guidance on unfamiliar routes at least”.  This shouldn’t be problematic as if you cannot walk on familiar routes you are hardly likely to be able to walk on unfamiliar ones.

In R(DLA) 2/08, a decision given after Mongan, so I am pretty sure the commissioner will have been familiar with that decision, it states:

“11. In CSDLA/12/2003, cited by the representative, at paragraph 28 I gave the
two usual questions relevant to entitlement to lower mobility:
‘(a) First of all, [a tribunal] must determine whether, through disablement,
the appellant is unable to walk on familiar routes without guidance or
supervision, in which case he satisfies;
(b) However, if the appellant does not qualify in this way, the tribunal
must then ask if it is different if the routes are unfamiliar viz is the appellant
unable to walk on such routes without guidance or supervision? If he is not so
able, he satisfies.’

12. If a claimant is unable to walk even on familiar routes without guidance or
supervision, then it logically follows that he will also be unable to do so on
unfamiliar ones; but the converse does not apply. It will depend upon the nature of
the claimant’s condition. If the complaint is of a bad left knee causing falls, then the
difficulties are likely to be the same whether the route is familiar or unfamiliar;
however if, for example, a claimant has genuine anxiety and panic, then what he is
able to do on a familiar route does not necessarily govern his capacity on an
unfamiliar one”.

Finally on the issue of agoraphobia and actually going out, in this case just walking in the back garden, then have a look at CDLA/2142/2005.

Further to my message posted on 6th Sept regarding my client who had been refused DLA on the grounds of her severe agoraphobia, I am very pleased to report that following our re-consideration request, she has been awarded LR mobility.  Thank you for the helpful replies which enabled me to pursue this for her.  She has struggled to have her condition acknowledged for so many years and she is delighted with the outcome.

I hope this helps other advisers who may see clients in similar situations.

Rachel,

This government, like the last, seems to be of the “pull-yourself-together / go out and get a job” mentality when it comes to people suffering from anxiety, agoraphobia etc, which really winds me up. Anyway, that’s just me ranting.

Regarding lower-rate mobility DLA, I’ve had a couple of decisions where the DWP have said the claimant can’t have lower-rate mobility because they’re not in danger outdoors. The latest DWP booklet on DLA also suggests strongly that you need to prove danger, which of course is true for middle-rate care, but not for lower-rate mobility.

CDLA/042/94 (*109/94) has lots about lower-rate mobility and about the meaning of “guidance” and “supervision”.

CDLA/2364/1995 also comments on “guidance” and “supervision”

R(DLA)4/01 is good. Disability Alliance’s synopsis says: “The test (for lower-rate mobility) is satisfied where someone is too frightened or nervous to walk out of doors (alone) on unfamiliar routes as a result of their underlying disability. Note: amending regulations state that fear and anxiety must be a symptom of mental disability which is severe enough to prevent someone from taking advantage of the faculty of walking without guidance or supervision on unfamiliar routes.” There is of course also the need to show what someone accompanying them could do to improve things.

CDLA/2462/2003 points out that in one case a Tribunal didn’t establish whether the routes discussed were familiar, which it described as an error of law in itself. It then says: “If they were familiar to her (the claimant), the fact that she was able to travel over them was no indication of her ability to manage an unfamiliar route”. This would seem something to quote at the DWP if they’re saying your client does okay outside.

There’s lots of case law which says that struggling to use familiar routes (like your client) can, even should, be taken as a very clear sign that a claimant will have more serious problems on unfamiliar routes. Have a look at:

http://www.disabilityalliance.org/dlalaw.htm#Lower

This gives a nice digest of some cases about familiar / unfamiliar routes.

Of course I’ve only just noticed that actually your client has now got lower-rate mobility. Still, I’m sure this case won’t be the last of its kind, so hopefully this will all be useful to others.

Steve “Disgusted of Bridport”