DLA mobility appeal judgement

Pink_Fizz

I have been looking at a successful appeal to the Upper Tribunal regarding DLA HR mobility and incontinence, CDLA 217 2009 Does anyone know if this still stands or has it further appealed by DWP?

tokenfield

Pink_Fizz wrote: »

I have been looking at a successful appeal to the Upper Tribunal regarding DLA HR mobility and incontinence, CDLA 217 2009 Does anyone know if this still stands or has it further appealed by DWP?

Can you actually claim that as need for mobility?

Amongst my other problems (mashed back, extremely poor peripheral circulation etc etc etc ) I also suffer from urine incontinence. I never even disclosed that or its affect on my ability to get around when I made my claim. Problem solved with nappies! No more planning journeys central to where the toilets are.

rogerblack

tokenfield wrote: »

Can you actually claim that as need for mobility?

Amongst my other problems (mashed back, extremely poor peripheral circulation etc etc etc ) I also suffer from urine incontinence. I never even disclosed that or its affect on my ability to get around when I made my claim. Problem solved with nappies! No more planning journeys central to where the toilets are.

The problem with the original decision in the above case was that the initial tribunal seems not to have taken into account the full text of the descriptor.
They can't simply ignore pain and discomfort arising on walking - whether from the effort of trying to contain incontinence, or from the effects - either physical or mental of the uncontained incontinence - which may amount to 'severe discomfort'.

tokenfield

rogerblack wrote: »

The problem with the original decision in the above case was that the initial tribunal seems not to have taken into account the full text of the descriptor.
They can't simply ignore pain and discomfort arising on walking - whether from the effort of trying to contain incontinence, or from the effects - either physical or mental of the uncontained incontinence - which may amount to 'severe discomfort'.

Personally I think that you are stretching it to breaking point! What it seems to me that you are doing is trying to fit the difficulties to the definitions. Something which is happening with ESA. I would just stick to the simple definition of mobility - you either can or can't - if you can does it cause severe discomfort - with that I am talking about leg muscles/blood supply to the lower limbs etc.
I just can't see how being incontinent can be said to be relevant to not being able to mobilise. There are adaptions and aids that can easily be worn that enables those with this condition to live a fairly normal life. If anybody said to me that they have been awarded HRM on the strength of being incontinent I would be most surprised.

Pink_Fizz

tokenfield wrote: »

If anybody said to me that they have been awarded HRM on the strength of being incontinent I would be most surprised.

Well the lady in the judgement could "walk and even run" and she was awarded HRM

It is not about your particular illness or your symptoms it is about how it personally affects you.

Its not about stretching a point it about having the rules interpreted fairly.

Parva

To put it bluntly, I'm pretty sure I could mobilise 50m with or without a Tenalady even if the wee was running down my leg (and I'm a guy). Really can't see how incontinence can be used towards a mobility issue. It's not about how it looks to others, it's about whether you can physically do it. I do believe there is a category later in the ESA50 that covers incontinence but to suggest that this is a mobility issue too, good luck with that.

Pink_Fizz

tokenfield wrote: »

Personally I think that you are stretching it to breaking point! .

Well its not me who made the appeal or the judgement...

Parva wrote: »

To put it bluntly, I'm pretty sure I could mobilise 50m with or without a Tenalady even if the wee was running down my leg

The lady in case actually said she could walk and even run ...

Parva wrote: »

Really can't see how incontinence can be used towards a mobility issue. It's not about how it looks to others, it's about whether you can physically do it.

No sorry you are incorrect the ruling actually says that distress could be counted as severe discomfort

Parva wrote: »

I do believe there is a category later in the ESA50 that covers incontinence

Why does a ESA50 have any relevance this is a DLA claim not everyone who claims DLA claims ESA and even if they did they are completely different forms and separate claims.

Parva wrote: »

but to suggest that this is a mobility issue too, good luck with that.

I don't really think she needs your good luck wishes she has already won her case and was awarded HRM

Parva

Pink_Fizz wrote: »

I don't really think she needs your good luck wishes she has already won her case and was awarded HRM

The point of your question here was?

Pink_Fizz

Parva wrote: »

The point of your question here was?

As in my OP "Does anyone know if this still stands or has it further appealed by DWP?"

Brassedoff

My point may go against the grain, but mobility should be restricted to physical mobility.

Where will it stop? "I have mobility issues in the morning because I cannot leave the house before Jeremy Kyle is on. Therefore I need a car to enable me to go out the house in the afternoon".

I am sorry, but incontinence alone should not be bent to a mobility issue. There are far too many people trying to get mobility for non physical issues, even depression has been mentioned on here as a reason to claim HRM. It makes one shake your head.

tokenfield

Brassedoff wrote: »

My point may go against the grain, but mobility should be restricted to physical mobility.

Where will it stop? "I have mobility issues in the morning because I cannot leave the house before Jeremy Kyle is on. Therefore I need a car to enable me to go out the house in the afternoon".

I am sorry, but incontinence alone should not be bent to a mobility issue. There are far too many people trying to get mobility for non physical issues, even depression has been mentioned on here as a reason to claim HRM. It makes one shake your head.

Exactly what I said. People will never stop trying to make out a case for DLA even if the needs they have were never envisaged when the benefit was first devised. The mobility element is simply for those that are physically unable and virtually unable to walk.
The next thing we will hear will be someone that has a boil on their bum, making it impossible to walk or maybe they have an aversion to daylight & moonlight?