Hi

I am currently preparing an appeal for a client who had her DLA claim turned down completely (which I helped her to complete). She has both physical and mental health problems. I will definitely be disputing both care and mobility components.

However, she told me that she does not normally get dressed (because of depression) but will if she has an appointment to attend. Is this a viable argument?

Thanks

See CSDLA/554/2005, para's 5-12. Not very helpful I'm afraid but it gives you an idea of arguments that you might have to overcome.

I don't know whether subsequently another commissioner has challenged that approach.

Thanks very much for your help

This paragraph seems to be saying that it does not really matter if the person does not have the motivation to get dressed on the days that they do not go out.

10. Moreover, attention has to be reasonably required. It must therefore be established that, if the claimant did not carry out these functions on a regular basis, the impact on his wellbeing is sufficiently adverse such that it justifies the impact which providing the service has on the carer’s life: in evaluating what is reasonable, consideration is paid to both the giver and the recipient of the attention. As was said by Miss Commissioner Fellner at paragraph 6 of CDLA/2495/2004:

“The evidence before the tribunal was that the claimant got out of bed unprompted, but then waited until his mother returned from work before doing anything else, including eating. I am willing to accept that the claimant does require prompting, but not that this equates to his mother carrying out for him all the specified functions. Prompting may be momentary. The evidence was that bathing/showering required more persuasion, but that shaving was done only every four days. So long as the claimant sometimes washes and shaves, it hardly matters that he does not do so every day. Nor would it particularly matter if he did not dress every day. He is not, on the evidence, going out much. I decline, therefore, to accept that all the functions that would be performed by a person going out and about to work or study reasonably require a person who is doing neither of these to be prompted to do every one of them every single day. Even if I did, there would be no question of the prompting being frequent throughout the day, it would be clustered at the beginning and end of the day.”

From that it does not seem worth including in my submission.

I think it might be worthwhile adding if your client aspires to dress every day. Some people might not bother to dress from choice if they don't have a particular reason, but for others the lack of motivation to get up/dress/wash and face the day might be a terrible thing. If the latter, I would say that strengthens the argument that it is reasonably needed to allow a claimant as far as possible to live a normal life (for example because it might be instrumental in improving a client's quality of life and mental state for the rest of the day). Sue

I would agree with that approach completely. I keep waiting for a case like that but all mine seem to fall into the former camp.