ESA Reasonable timescale mobilizing

JaneDoeJohnDoe

I seem to recall there was some kind of definition or case law ruling or Govt statute rules/regs regarding Reasonable Timescale in walking in the ESA WCA. Something like, & excuse English ...if you can't cover distance in 3 times the time of a "normal" person then you can not do the activity.

I've done several search engine looking but can not find it.

So can anyone point me in the right direction please ?:money:

Alice_Holt

1) That relates to PIP - If a claimant takes more than twice as long as a non disabled person to do an activity they should be scored as not able (reliably) to perform that activity.

2) The ESA descriptor is not just walking but includes the use of a manual wheelchair. ESA looks at the distance a claimant can cover before needing to stop. Here is the descriptor:

"1. Mobilising unaided by another person with or without a walking stick, manual wheelchair or other aid if such aid is normally, or could reasonably be, worn or used.
1 (a) Cannot either (i) mobilise more than 50 meters on level ground without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion or (ii) repeatedly mobilise 50 meters within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion. 15 points.
1 (b) Cannot mount or descend two steps unaided by another person even with the support of a handrail. 9 points.
1 (c) Cannot either (i) mobilise more than 100 meters on level ground without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion or (ii) repeatedly mobilise 100 meters within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion. 9 points.
1 (d) Cannot either (i) mobilise more than 200 metres on level ground without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion or (ii) repeatedly mobilise 200 meters within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion. 6 points.
1 (e) None of the above apply. 0 points."

For ESA, the issue is less about slowness but more about whether you could do it ‘repeatedly within a reasonable timescale’. So if you would be exhausted or in severe pain after mobilising 50 metres once and would not be able to do it again for some time then that could count as not being able to do it.

poppy12345

Alice_Holt wrote: »

1)

2) The ESA descriptor is not just walking but includes the use of a manual wheelchair.

Good point there Alice. During my very recent ESA assessment the use of a self propel wheelchair was mentioned. It was also mentioned in my report.



If they think you would be able to use a wheelchair then they'll find you fit for work, so you don't only have to prove you're unable to walk that distance but you also have to prove you won't be able to self propel.

JaneDoeJohnDoe

Alice_Holt wrote: »

1) That relates to PIP - If a claimant takes more than twice as long as a non disabled person to do an activity they should be scored as not able (reliably) to perform that activity.

2) The ESA descriptor is not just walking but includes the use of a manual wheelchair. ESA looks at the distance a claimant can cover before needing to stop. Here is the descriptor:

"1. Mobilising unaided by another person with or without a walking stick, manual wheelchair or other aid if such aid is normally, or could reasonably be, worn or used.
1 (a) Cannot either (i) mobilise more than 50 meters on level ground without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion or (ii) repeatedly mobilise 50 meters within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion. 15 points.
1 (b) Cannot mount or descend two steps unaided by another person even with the support of a handrail. 9 points.
1 (c) Cannot either (i) mobilise more than 100 meters on level ground without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion or (ii) repeatedly mobilise 100 meters within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion. 9 points.
1 (d) Cannot either (i) mobilise more than 200 metres on level ground without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion or (ii) repeatedly mobilise 200 meters within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion. 6 points.
1 (e) None of the above apply. 0 points."

For ESA, the issue is less about slowness but more about whether you could do it ‘repeatedly within a reasonable timescale’. So if you would be exhausted or in severe pain after mobilising 50 metres once and would not be able to do it again for some time then that could count as not being able to do it.

It's the "REASONABLE TIMESCALE" I'm trying to establish. Got the not using manual wheelchair bit covered. Thanks.

poppy12345

JaneDoeJohnDoe wrote: »

It's the "REASONABLE TIMESCALE" I'm trying to establish. Got the not using manual wheelchair bit covered. Thanks.

There's no reasonable timescale as such... all non disabled people walk at different speeds.

JaneDoeJohnDoe

poppy12345 wrote: »

There's no reasonable timescale as such... all non disabled people walk at different speeds.

Yes, I realise that & Google gives an average of 1.4m/s. It's the $64,000 question unfortunately as one HCP or DM view may differ from anothers!

poppy12345

Alice_Holt wrote: »

1)
For ESA, the issue is less about slowness but more about whether you could do it ‘repeatedly within a reasonable timescale’. So if you would be exhausted or in severe pain after mobilising 50 metres once and would not be able to do it again for some time then that could count as not being able to do it.

This advice from Alice is what you should be looking at and not the speed in which you can walk. You're looking at it completely wrong.

Alice_Holt

JaneDoeJohnDoe wrote: »

Yes, I realise that.............

By fixating on walking speed for the ESA mobilising activity, you are misunderstanding how the activity is assessed.

The timescales you mention in your opening post are very relevant for PIP, as I have already explained to you.

However, for ESA walking speed is not crucial. What matters is how far the claimant can walk before needing to stop because of severe discomfort. And whether that severe discomfort then prevents the claimant repeating the activity / descriptor.

Try clearing your mind of the notion around "can't cover distance in x times the time of a "normal" person", and re-read my reply and the descriptor more carefully.

The descriptor (1ai) reads "mobilise more than 50 meters on level ground without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion"
Nowhere does it refer to timescales taken to cover this distance.
Now carefully read:
1aII - repeatedly mobilise 50 meters within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion
Can you see that the qualifier of "reasonable timescale" refers to "repeatedly mobilise" ?

So, the timescale in this descriptor is not about slowness of walking but the time taken to recover from pain / exhaustion / etc in order to repeat the activity.

JaneDoeJohnDoe

Alice_Holt wrote: »

By fixating on walking speed for the ESA mobilising activity, you are misunderstanding how the activity is assessed.

The timescales you mention in your opening post are very relevant for PIP, as I have already explained to you.

However, for ESA walking speed is not crucial. What matters is how far the claimant can walk before needing to stop because of severe discomfort. And whether that severe discomfort then prevents the claimant repeating the activity / descriptor.

Try clearing your mind of the notion around "can't cover distance in x times the time of a "normal" person", and re-read my reply and the descriptor more carefully.

Many thanks for that, but when a HCP asks the person I am assisting with their ESA how long did it take to walk from the car park in the WCA & when the DM rings up to say the person does not get any points as they covered the 300m too quickly I am trying to establish the "basic speed".

I am aware that What matters is how far the claimant can walk before needing to stop because of severe discomfort. And whether that severe discomfort then prevents the claimant repeating the activity / descriptor.



BUT the phrase REASONABLE TIMESCALE is used.



The claimant can not walk 10m without being in severe discomfort - they are all the time. Personally I think the "substantial risk" Non-specific descriptor would be their best bet. They can not mobilise in a wheelchair due to hand conditions.


Activity 1: Mobilising unaided by another person with or without a walking stick, manual wheelchair or other aid if such aid can reasonably be used.
Descriptor:
(a) Cannot either:
i) mobilise more than 50 metres on level ground without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion;
ii) or repeatedly mobilise 50 metres within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion.
15 Points
b) Cannot mount or descend two steps unaided by another person even with the support of a handrail.
9 Points
Cannot either:
i) mobilise more than 100 metres on level ground without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion;
or
(ii) repeatedly mobilise 100 metres within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion.
9 Points
(d) Cannot either:
(i) mobilise more than 200 metres on level ground without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion;
or
(ii) repeatedly mobilise 200 metres within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion.
6 Points
(e) None of the above apply.
0 Points

Assessment of whether a claimant has limited capability for work-related activity

Activity 1: Mobilising unaided by another person with or without a walking stick, manual wheelchair or other aid if such aid can reasonably be used
Descriptors:
Cannot either:
(a) mobilise more than 50 metres on level ground without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion; or
(b) repeatedly mobilise 50 metres within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion.


So, taking the last line into consideration..(b) repeatedly mobilise 50 metres within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion.

That states repeatedly in a reasonable timescale... So 50m in quarter hour once say or 50m twice in 35mins. Or 3 times in an hour. So if claimant says I could do once in quarter hour & maybe two in 35mins before becoming exhausted or getting significant discomfort is 2 x50m in 35 mins reasonable? The only way to establish that is to know an average speed as a base.

JaneDoeJohnDoe

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/595b4c5540f0b60a400000e8/CE_0175_2017-00.pdf Is an Upper tier tribunal decision based upon time & distance.
Read the full decision in CE/175/2017.
Judicial Summary

It is perfectly permissible for a tribunal, in making findings as to the distance a claimant is able to walk, to attach weight to that claimant’s own estimate as to how long in terms of time (usually expressed in minutes) he/she is able to walk for. It is also permissible for a tribunal to extrapolate as to what such an estimate, if reliable, might translate into in terms of distance. However, there is no rule to say that where a time estimate is offered it has to be accepted unless there is something specific to contradict it or to suggest it is unreliable. Further, it may be appropriate for a tribunal to consider whether such an estimate is or is not likely to be reliable and to probe this with a claimant. There may be reason to think that time estimates as to journeys which are undertaken regularly might be reliable.


Published 4 July 2017

Alice_Holt

JaneDoeJohnDoe wrote: »

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/595b4c5540f0b60a400000e8/CE_0175_2017-00.pdf Is an Upper tier tribunal decision based upon time & distance.
Read the full decision in CE/175/2017.
Judicial Summary

It is perfectly permissible for a tribunal, in making findings as to the distance a claimant is able to walk, to attach weight to that claimant’s own estimate as to how long in terms of time (usually expressed in minutes) he/she is able to walk for. It is also permissible for a tribunal to extrapolate as to what such an estimate, if reliable, might translate into in terms of distance. However, there is no rule to say that where a time estimate is offered it has to be accepted unless there is something specific to contradict it or to suggest it is unreliable. Further, it may be appropriate for a tribunal to consider whether such an estimate is or is not likely to be reliable and to probe this with a claimant. There may be reason to think that time estimates as to journeys which are undertaken regularly might be reliable.


Published 4 July 2017

You asked about: "rules/regs regarding Reasonable Timescale in walking in the ESA WCA. Something like, & excuse English ...if you can't cover distance in 3 times the time of a "normal" person then you can not do the activity. "

I (and poppy) have explained that timescales are very relevant for PIP, however, for ESA walking speed is not crucial. What matters is the distance the claimant can walk before needing to stop because of severe discomfort. And whether that severe discomfort then prevents the claimant repeating the activity / descriptor.

Please re-read the case law you have quoted with an open mind. Note that the tribunal state "in making findings as to the distance a claimant is able to walk,". They are not looking at whether an award can be given because a claimant walks 3 times slower than a "normal" person.
They are looking at:
the relationship between walking distance and times, relative to that claimant's walking speed; and
if they can use the appellants evidence, as to walking speed, when coming to a decision about distance.

A further explanation - often the HCP / DM may write in the bundle something like - 'claimant walks 4 mins to the local shop every day'. At a normal walking speeds (90m to a minute) this would equate to 360m and therefore no ESA points, however at a very slow walking speed (40m to a minute) it's 160m and the potential for 6 points.

You have told us that the DM quoted a distance of 300m, therefore no points. Looking at walking speeds is utterly pointless in this circumstance. You need to be looking at whether the claimant needs to stop (because of severe discomfort) whilst walking 300m.

I am genuinely puzzled why you cannot see this, and seem determined to argue with us. Please. if you are assisting someone in an ESA appeal, try to get them to an advice agency and the get help of a benefits specialist to represent them at appeal.
If you persistently try to argue at the hearing the case you are putting forward in this thread, you will do the claimant no favours at all.