My client has a visual impairment - she can make out the difference between light & dark, see the outline of a person in front of a window but cannot see well enough to cope with her everyday routine.
She has had MRCC since a young child (now in her early 20's).
To my astonishment and, I admit, my outrage, this has been dropped to LRCC.
The DM is saying:
Mrs K has adjusted well to her condition over the years & adapted to her home environment
her family will take precautions not to move her stuff about, so she can find it
going clothes shopping or to the gym ( 2 examples we gave of when she needs help) will only be occassional
" Any help with shopping is not considered as this can be done by a third party"
I thought that every time she needs help to "see" something, she needs help with the bodily function of seeing. I would have thought she needs help to see frrequently. Does it matter whether she "needs" to see or just "wants" to see?
We gave numerous examples of the help she needs with seeing but to no avail.
I'm so cross about this.
Anyone else noticed DWP getting tough over Mallinson?

Carole

They're not getting tough over Mallinson, some of them are ignoring it and I get the distinct feel that the rest of them have'nt even heard of it........

I've had two AA claims thrown out for clients who had very similar conditions to yours - the vision being so limited so as to be of liitle or no use to the client - one actually got as far as Appeal before the Chair awarded it in four minutes flat.

I wonder whether the DM referred to one of their in-house medical advisers when reaching this extraordinary decision. I frequently find among appeal papers a contribution from a so-called medical adviser who doesn't know my client from Adam finds a ludicrous reason for disallowing a claim or reducing an award. Today, for example, I have recieved appeal documents for a person with a severe mental illness whose psychiatrist wrote on her form that she would always be subject to sudden deteriorations and who has been hospitalised twice under a section in the past year. The "advice" used by the DM to reject the claim is that "her condition is characterized by episodes of illness, but in between times there is nothing that can be done to prevent further episodes.....Continual supervision is not currently necessary, won't make any difference when she is well." This unhelpful and frankly ludicrous opinion comes from "Dr Griffiths", whoever he or she may be. Never heard of him/her!

Carole, I bet that when you the appeal documents land on your desk they will include some similar nonsense.

Perhaps we should have a competition to find the stupidest "advice" used as grounds for turning down someone's claim. I offer the above as a contender, but I'm sure other people out there can find even more ridiculous better examples.

A word about the "unnecessary" shopping. The DM has not allowed the lady to exercise choice in the matter. If I were the claimant, I'd be only too pleased to give someone a list and stay at home, but the point of Mallinson is that people should be allowed to live as full a life as possible, with reasonable help.

I bet the claimant wants to do her own shopping, making her own choices with the help of somebody describing the goods, etc. That's receiving personal care. A while ago I had an elderly wheelchair-user in the same position - she wanted to go to Tesco herself, so her neighbour took her and got things out of freezers and off shelves for her inspection, etc. She also wanted to cook her own meals, for which she needed the neighbour to act as kitchen porter - this was care too. Both points were accepted by the tribunal without question.

Jim

That is the point that the DM's cannot seem to grasp - the claimant is capable of achieving a range of activities - but only with an extra pair of eyes to guide and help them.

The same applies within the home - there are differences between those who have always been blind and those who have lost their sight in later life - the latter have greater difficulty adjusting - they may think they know where every stick of furniture is in their home, but they still become disorientated and fall over it.

Because of the problems we've had in the past, we have taken to sending a copy of Mallinson with any reconsideration we've had to do in these cases - it's a pain, but hopefully seems to have some effect.....

DM isn't disputing the level of impairment. I sent in a mini-submission, complete with Mallinson, to try and avert the need for a hearing.
To no avail - got the response above.
I thought it didn't matter where the claimant is when they need help with seeing. The DM disagrees.
This is the third time in two years I've seen LRCC awarded to someone (each time after renewal funnily enough) with a visual impairment. The other two went to tribunal too and were increased to MRCC.
Sometimes this job feels like the work of Sisyphus.

Would it be in poor taste to also suggest a competition for the stupidest reason for wanting to claim DLA in the first place such as the client who wanted to claim mobility because she could no longer wear high heels?