according to the DWP CIB/88/97 held that walking up and down stairs is not a continuous process and in normal life people go upstairs for a purpose and do not come down immediatly.

In an IB appeal submission they are saying that any need for the applicant to rest before coming downsairs after climbing them is not therefore relevant to the test (or that the correct test would be a need to rest on a flight of 13 steps not 12.)

Two questions:

i can't find the full decision anywhere - does anyone have a copy they could send me? (fax 0117 3146419)

I'm not entirely convinced by their argument on a logical basis but cna't find any contractorty case law. Does anyone know of any decision that blatantly disagrees with this? I have R(IB)1/99 "the draftsman had had in contemplation an inability to go up and down a flight of stairs without the necessity at some stage at least to restrict one’s movement to one step at a time" which comes close to a disagreement - but it predates the case they are relying on.

any advice?

many thanks
Caroline

I think you have some mileage in your arguement , the wording is clearly , 'up and down', not 'up or down', therefore I would also argue you score points if you cannot go up and down without a rest.The Commissioner appears to defeat their own arguement not coming down straight away is surely a rest.

The problem is that unless there is a conflicting decision it will bind the tribunal and the case will have to get to the commissioner for him to be persuaded that the decision should not be followed as it is not good law.

Hi, thanks for your responses. yes my fear is that the decision they quote does remain good law even if in my view it's bad law! surely if the draughtsman had in mind up OR down he/ she would have written up OR down!. I'm struggling to beleive that there's been no more recent arguments about it though.

Immaterial if the client does actually need to stop and rest within 12 steps up or down, but its an interesting legal point i guess.

could be a fascinating trip to the commissioners (sorry. Upper TribunaI) unless someone can put me out of my misery with a newer conflicting decision!!