Commissioner/Judge Gamble’s decision on caring??

I’ll try again…  :)

Have a statement of reasons that includes…..

...............“the tribunals attention to Upper Tribunal Judge Gamble’s decision which states clearly that care and supervision cannot be provided by someone claiming to have the same needs”.............

Anyone guide me as to what this decision is???

I’m not aware, off the top of my head, of the decision you refer to.  However, I will say this.  There is nothing, as a matter of law, preventing a person getting DLA as a disabled person and getting CA as a carer.  The question is, are the carer’s duties incompatible with his needs as a disabled person?  And that is a question of fact in each case.

Hi Neil

I suspect that the decision they are referring to is CDLA/3027/2005.  I’ve attached it for you.

Derek

That decision in my view is not authority for the proposition that you can’t qualify for DLA if you are a carer. It is simply saying that the tribunal did not make a mistake of law in deciding that the level of disability claimed by the appellant was inconsistent with the reported demands on him as a carer for his wife. The tribunal could have gone the other way and not been wrong either.
What it does imply though is that it is essential to look at what the carer does for the person cared for and whether that is inconsistent with the carer’s claimed disability. So, for example, if the carer says he can’t bathe himself but does bathe the person cared for… you see what I mean.
It isn’t at all uncommon for people to be mutual carers, Their disabilities may be very different. A person with poor mobility can still provide encouragement and reminders to a person who self-neglects or has cognitive problems. A person who has moderate learning disability can help a person with poor mobility to move around. As ever, it’s all down to the FACTS, not the law. And I speak as a(former) lawyer. In disability cases never underestimate the importance of asceertaining the facts first, then applying the law.

Cheers Derek, you are a star.

Ariadne, I could not agree more with your assumption.

I won this particular appeal. It was by majority with the chair the dissenter. She would appear to have read the situation all wrong in that she lost sight of the fundemental argument…did the client need care or supervision as oppossed to who carried out these care and supervision duties. She has went along fully with the presenting officer.

Luckily the medical member and wing based their decision on the clients needs and awarded LRC and LRM.

(Client claimed partner helps her….“they help each other”........and he is getting LRC and LRM)

Thing is the DWP have requested full reasons and I think they have been heavily slanted by the chair to encourage an appeal to the Upper Tribunal :(

Ariadne - 07 June 2011 05:20 PM

It isn’t at all uncommon for people to be mutual carers, Their disabilities may be very different. A person with poor mobility can still provide encouragement and reminders to a person who self-neglects or has cognitive problems. A person who has moderate learning disability can help a person with poor mobility to move around. As ever, it’s all down to the FACTS.

Spot on. I have assisted in numerous cases, and many on here likewise, where Income Support or Pension Credit assessments include 2 x Severe disability Premium AND 2 x Carers Premium.  :)