statement of reasons DLA low-rate mobility

I had a client recently who lost her DLA appeal.  We requested a statement of reasons for the decision.  The following paragraph was included regarding the low-rate of the mobility component:

                        “In order to qualify for the award the person walking with the appellant would have to give more than reassurance and would be required to encourage, persuade or in some other more proactive way be seen to assist the appellant with regards to the supervision and guidance than provide just assurance and confidence”

What do people think of this?  Can reassurance not be supervision?  Does this seem a correct interpretation of the criteria for low-rate mobility?  I might be on a hiding to nothing here but would appreciate any opinions regarding the chances at second-tier tribunal and if there might be any useful caselaw regarding this.

Thanks in advance

I don’t usually do written submissions for DLA cases but lower rate mob on this issue is one of the exceptions for precisely this reason.  Here is an extract from it.

‘In R (DLA) 3/4 the commissioner states (at paragraph 6): - 

“The claimant and Ms Haywood both submit that the tribunal erred in their approach to the word “guidance”. I agree. It is true that the mere fact that a claimant derives reassurance from another person does not mean that that person is providing guidance or supervision but the point was made in CDLA/42/1994, at paragraph 22(l), that it is equally true that the fact that a claimant derives reassurance from another person does not mean that that other person is not providing guidance or supervision. See, also, R(DLA) 4/01, at paragraph 18, where a Tribunal of Commissioners followed CDLA/42/1994 in holding that supervision requires an element of monitoring or readiness to intervene so as to prevent the claimant’s ability to take advantage of the faculty of walking from being compromised.”

And (at paragraph 7): -

“The claimant and Ms Haywood both also submit that the action of talking to a claimant to take her mind off her fears is likely to involve supervision. The talking itself may be “attention” rather than “supervision” but it plainly requires an element of monitoring of the claimant to see how she is reacting and it seems to me plain that if the claimant needs that assistance from another person in order to make use of the faculty of walking, she prima facie falls within the scope of section 73(1)(d)” [my emphasis].

In CDLA/42/94 the commissioner (at paragraph 19) states: -

“Translating that approach (that taken in Moran v Secretary of State for Social Services regarding continual supervision for the care component – my insert), disregarding for the moment the “continual” element, to the context of section 73(1)(d) produces the result that there is supervision of a claimant’s walking when another person is accompanying the claimant and is watching over her, in the sense of monitoring her physical or mental or emotional state for signs of something that might require some more positive action by the person to enable or encourage the claimant to continue walking or monitoring the route ahead for obstacles, dangers or places or situations which might upset or disquiet the claimant or otherwise affect her adversely. Such monitoring is supervision even though it never results in the need for more positive action. Such action, which might still be essentially precautionary, can also come within the meaning of supervision. The sorts of things I have in mind here are encouraging, persuading or cajoling the claimant, or providing distraction from possibly alarming situations by conversation. I stress again that these are merely examples of what in my view comes within the ordinary meaning of “supervision” and I am not purporting to give a definition to be applied mechanically to all cases. In different circumstances other kinds of action may be supervision.”’

It seems like the DMs in Blackpool seem to be using great creativity in their decisions these days.
Most of the refusals i deal with seem to be based on the fact that clients “prefer” the help rather than actually need it in their opinion.
I have also noticed they are using the phrases “with help you can manage ...” or “taking your time you can slowly manage to ...” as part of their decision. I always thought the spirit of DLA was comparing peoples lives with disabilities versus those without. That seems to have gone out of the window or maybe i was just being a bit naive!