Just had a very disappointing decision with care. I didn't represent originally - only got involved after client appealled his nil award without success.
He is in his late thirties with poorly controlled angina and has had at least one MI. He lives with his wife and they have three young children. He is trying to be independent and do stuff for himself, even though he gets very breathless and tired. His wife is busy caring for the children.
I appealled to commissioner, saying that whilst I acknowledge that the client managed most of his personal care,the tribunal had not considered whether the attention is reasonably required.
Commissioner says:
"Of course it was proper for the tribunal to note that he does his own self care. I see what the representative is saying, but with a wife at home, even with the children to look after, there is no reason to suppose that if the claimant wanted help, he could not have it. But he does without."
So, is this saying that a claimant must avail themself of any help rather that struggle to care for themselves? If they choose to do without help (for whatever reason) then that proves the attention is not reasonably required?

This is a common problem. Many clients do not want to admit the severity of their condition. Others worry that they will do down hill if they stop doing things for themselves. Some are encouraged to apply by others but play down their problems because they feel like benefit scroungers.
I agree that the test should be objective. If the client needs the help, whether or not he gets it, he should be entitled to some award. However that is easier to argue if the client actually wants help but s not getting any at present. If the client has stated on the form that he does not have problems with various activities relating to bodily functions it will be difficult. The tribunal/commissioner can only apply the law to the material facts of the case as presented to them. This being the DLA form and any other subsequent submission such as EMP report.
Best route may be to re apply. The client will however have to admit that he needs help at least with some things.

Isn't there just the teeniest suggestion of discrimination on marital status grounds here?

its the common catch22 of dla and attention

live with partner - actual help given is not reasonably required
live alone - help reasonably required is not available therefore not required