well unfortunately probably not - but the quality of DLA/AA decisions for claimants who are pre-lingually deaf never fails to apall

client - deaf, BSL 1st language, very limited speach, limited use of written english. Was awarded lower rate mobility in 1998 (why no care component???)

reasons for supersession decision Feb 04 reads:

"decision dated 1998 was erroneous in law. The customer is deaf and in receipt lr mc DLA. She should be able to ask directions by written word, or even plan a journey on an unfamiliar routes before hand using a map. Although unable to hear traffic, the customers sight is not affected and she should be able to manage oudoors without help"

leaving aside the legal arguments re error in law there is no evidence in the SofS submission to support any supersession of any description.

I know this kind of decision keeps advice worker entertained but how many other claimants are on the receiving end of this nonesense?

maybe we should do a worst decision ever competion - but would we ever get to the end of it?

i must say it's going it a bit to supersede? on error in law grounds. they usually wait til the renewal. is this a new trend or was it a life award? : )

don't you just love these "should" be able to... decisions?

i've got one on the go at the moment, appealing for highest award, was given low care. can't say too much at present but if the DWP's 'psychological overlay' trumps the brilliant and up to date with scientific thinking report from the consultant in pain management, i will explode in full technicolor.

another 'should be able to' decision, which the tribunal agreed should never have reached the tribunal, implied (though i've no reason to suspect the D-M thought her prejudices through) that the disabled person had no need to do anything all day other than sit in her chair and vegetate. simple! no help needed!

the D-M's job is to decide objectively on the evidence whether the conditions are met for any award of DLA. it seems to me the D-M's 'think' their job is to find reasons to disallow. the number of overturned appeals is evidence that something is very wrong, and if the DWP is interested, I think they need look only a little further than the rubbish in the little decision box that the 'automated' appeal submissions refer us to. considering the huge body of case work on DLA, why have i never seen any considered in the 'little box' recording the DM's decision? Why is the claimant's evidence ignored, unless it can be used to disallow?

In the appeal submissions, the reference to case law appears only in the 'automatically' produced list. Considering the efforts put in to Commissioners' decision, i wonder they don't go round with their heads in their hands wondering why they bother! The appeal writers (round here at least) do not engage with the appeal in any way. The reasons for the decision is given by rote - " It has been established that the conditions... are not satisfied." AAARRGGHHH! how do they get away with this? they don't make submissions on the relevant issues in thee appeal. they don't even IDENTIFY the relevant issues. the whole thing is left to the tribunal, which i assume is resourced to hear challenges to first tier decisions, but not to do the job the first tier decision-makers couldn't be bothered to do properly in the first place. they must get sick of cases going to appeal which should never have to get there.

oh, and what about the meaningless 'reconsideration' page? hahaha!

so, why does the approach of DLA D-M's appear to be that of finding 'reasons' to disallow? Parliament has seen fit to enact legislation paying sums of money to disabled people who meet certain criteria. the civil service could not allow its executive agencies to save the treasury money by giving unjust decisions contrary to the will of parliament, could it?

past caring, on a HB fraud thread made the point that the DWP flies disallowance decisions without evidence, and given that only a smallish percentage appeal, the DWP wins. spot on.

jj

We had a humdinger of a decision recently - the tribunal said that the claimant, who is blind (and has other disabilities including arthritis) "should be able to" cross roads without any help because she has been blind for many years and there are lots of beeping pelican crossings nowadays.

Now on its way to the commissioners....

Hi - re your appeal to Coms.
Many people are knocked down and killed whilst crossing at pelican crossings (with and without the beeping) this can be due to pedestrian carelessness and to driver carelessness and recklessness. Most of us, when crossing roads, have the secondary defence of being able to keep looking both ways to keeps safe (your client can't do this). In an ideal world there wouldn't be idiots shooting through red lights etc. but in the real world this does happen so we are all at risk and some more than others. Perhaps the tribunal should be made to look at the advert I grew up watching showing children how to cross the road "Look right, look left, look right and look left again, and if the road is clear, cross. BUT REMEMBER! keep looking left and right as you cross!" Please note: no mention of listening.
Mark

The key, of course, is.....in unfamiliar places. So how does the blind person know where the pelican crossings are. Are they permanently beeping? Otherwise s/he would have to ask someone where they are. In that case....guidance!

We have just picked up a case which WILL go to appeal:- 20 yr old who is profoundly deaf been in receipt of DLA since she was 3, which a DM has just given a new award of NIL - urmmmm Clts condition has not changed >??????????????. Keep these fab decisions coming!

OOPS!! soz given incorrect info by client - she put her claim pack in 5 months late, therefore old award was terminated and new claim put in 5 months later and it was then given new award of NIL - still going to appeal thou!