CSA/65/89

Does anyone have a copy of this decision please?

It relates to whether elasticated trousers are a suitable alternative to ‘normal’ trousers, thus obviating the need for help with clothing when toileting. 

Victor

5.12 Obviating Need
obviating need

R(A)1/87 endorsed the view that adjudicating authorities may examine and propose alternative measures to limit or dispose of
the need for .attention. or .supervision.. It held that such authorities were .entitled to suggest and take account of practical
measures to overcome a problem thought to involve a requirement of attention or supervision..

Commissioner J G Mitchell

alternative measure must be reasonable

R(A)3/90 supported the view held in R(A)1/87 in respect to the alternative measures provision but held that the proposed
practical measure .must be reasonable. and the consequences of the proposal must be examined.

In this case the determining authority suggested that the claimant could be locked indoors to prevent them from possible
wandering. The Commissioners ruled this approach to be erroneous as it took no account of possible dangers eg fire. Locked
doors would prevent the disabled person from making an escape and impeded outside assistance.

Commissioners Douglas Reith, J G Mitchell & A T Hoolahan

suggestions not without limit

CSA/101/88 provided .the one matter in this case which caused me some concern was in regard to the night conditions where
what was advanced as negativing requirements for attention and supervision was the provision of a bedside commode. It is, as I
have observed, open to a DMP to hold some degree of attention or supervision not to be required in terms of the statute because
there is a simple means of obviating that provision.

MNP Training Case Law Pack January 2010

And of course what may, for understandable reasons, be provided is not the test of what is required to be provided. But the scope
for a DMP to make suggestions negativing requirement cannot be without limit.

That which a fairly minimal normal household could be expected to have available to it can no doubt be made the subject of such
a suggestion. But where some specific item of equipment or, as here, in effect, furniture is desiderated, which is unlikely to be so
available, but is, on the other hand, likely to be of some financial cost to such a family, I consider that it behoves the DMP to first
consider whether such an item can properly be regarded as available to the claimant.

If a DMP were to hold some specific item to be available which in actual fact was not, and could not be obtained then he would
clearly have perpetrated an injustice.

I appreciate that the problem is to get appropriate evidence before him when a DMP considers such a matter. Fairness will also
require a claimant to be given a chance to deal with such a suggestion..

Commissioner W M Walker

how will commode be emptied?
Hi I hope these will help. They include CSA/65/89
CSA/76/89 held that if adjudicating authorities purport that assistance with toileting can be avoided by the use of a commode
there is a need to consider the questions of how it will be emptied.

Commissioner J G Mitchell

obviating need - elasticated clothing is it available and appropriate?

CSA/65/89 criticised the DMP.s approach that the claimant could wear elasticated tracksuit bottoms to obviate help needed with
clothing when toileting. It was said that the approach did not take into account evidence where .it was pointed out that the
claimant was known to be well dressed, that he had a morale and emotional problem and that it was important that he maintain
his personal standards..

The Commissioner held that .whilst it may be legitimate to discount attention provided upon the ground that it is not required
because there is some simple alternative obviously available to an individual, there is a difficult and dangerous borderline
between that and the next stage of desiderating an alternative which is or may be not available or is or may be inappropriate..

Commissioner W M Walker

Thanks for this Mark.  There are some useful references. 

However I would really like an actual copy of CSA/65/89 to send to the tribunal.  Our fax number is 0161 474 3095 if anyone has a copy.