50 yards / 50 metres DLA higher mobility case law

hi - seems to be accepted in R(M)5/86 -

attached below.

cheers ros

I would be very wary of the relevance of much of the old Mobility Allowance and early DLA case law around distances.  I think that much of it has been overtaken by R(DLA) 4/03, particularly paras 22-25, where the commissioner says, among other things, that “it is not, however, the law that only walking to a first halt required through severe discomfort is relevant. This adds an unjustifiable gloss to the statutory criteria given the broad purpose of the test under regulation 12(1)(a)(ii), which is to establish the practical limitations on a person’s ability to walk due to the stated factors.”

That said, many DM’s and tribunals do use such a figure but, in my view, risk falling into error if taking an oversimplistic approach.

Edited to attach decision.

hi - i don’t disagree - the case law, particlarly more recently, is careful to say that it is up to the decision maker to make a finding on the facts of each case looking at speed, manner etc as well as distance.

cheers ros

Hi - I don’t disagree either.

However, the issue I’m trying to hone in is the ‘general acceptance’ of 50 yards / 50 metres as a benchmark for higher mobility DLA compared to the 20 metre PIP benchmark (and that while the former distance was flagged up in the PIP assessment consultation any indication of the latter was absent).

Hi Ken,

I am more than happy to disagree, although I can’t think of any reason to.

From memory, it was CDLA/252/1994 where the 50 year benchmark was boldly suggested, and then CDLA/608/1994 et al disagreed (‘each case on merits’) although 608 itself proceeded to suggest about 20 or 30 years or some such.

252 was then quoted a lot by presenting officers, and featured heavily in the DWP cut and paste sections in submissions, at least at the time.

The PIP amending reg that insists on the 4 reliability factors being taken into account does I think bring us back squarely to the same issues about distance and speed of movement etc that the above cases relate to.

On the 20 metre business in Mobility PIP, I still struggle with the indoor relevance. The Assessment Guide stats off by referring to walking on a pavement/kerb, but then flags up 20 metres as of indoor relevance. Also, you would only score Mobility points to get to the toilet, and then Daily Living points for help on the toilet etc - you can’t combine them, even though the need relates to the same general need (i.e. getting to and using the toilet or take medication etc).

And as for ‘cannot…at all’ in relation to the four reliability factors… still not resolved.

What a mess.

Steve

Yes, from memory, wasn’t the gist of it that if the claimant could walk 30 yards or less they were virtually unable to walk, if it was more than 80 yards they probably weren’t virtually unable to walk and in the murky ground in between it would depend on the individual circumstances?

Here is a clip from para 3.3.21 of the DWP PIP Assessment Guide, that is used to train ATOS staff. The following clip is from the answer to a case study in relation to Mr X…

“Safely

There is no evidence that this activity poses any risk to Mr X’s safety. He has said
he experiences some pain and breathlessness and, while this may be uncomfortable, he knows when to stop and rest and there is no indication that this causes him any harm…

Repeatedly

Mr X has to stop and rest for about 5 minutes after walking 250 metres, before he
can start walking again, but he can repeat the activity for up to an hour multiple times in one day. This is more frequently than would reasonably be expected so Mr X can be said to complete the activity repeatedly.

In a timely manner

Mr X can walk the first 150 metres at a normal pace before he begins to slow, but it only takes him four minutes to walk 200 metres. Although a little slower than normal, this is a reasonable time period for someone to walk 200 metres and therefore Mr X can complete the activity in a timely manner..”

*****

Notice that pain does you no harm.

Notice the assumptions made about repeatability

Notice the assumptions made about speed of walking.

We really need a decent set of parameters to compare our clients to what should properly be described as ‘normal’, in terms of walking speed etc.

Steve