I took a case to tribunal the other day looking for middle rate on grounds of supervision -after long discussions about supervision and reference to one of Commissioner Jacobs decisions on the subject, (Number I can't remember) I only got low rate - basic facts were:

Child - 7 - suffers from a total allergy to anything that comes from milk - one minute drop can produce immediate reaction - ingesting any food stuff, sweets or drinks that contain milk products can cause very similar symptoms to anaphalatic shock. Epilin injections are held at home, at school and carried at all times. All school staff are trained to look for symptoms - as are all relatives and close friends. standing instructions are that injection must be given and ambulance must be called in event of incident, even before parents are contacted. The last such incident was about two years ago, and since then the parents have been extra vigilant.

The child has a slightly less serious allergy to all soya products - which merely cause her to have stomach pains and sickness. Parents have to read labels on absolutely everything they buy - they have also had to carry out extensive research to find those products that aren't adequately labelled, of which there are apparently quite a few.
The original decision maker (and on Recon) claimed that at 7, the child should be aware of common dangers etc and could look out for herself basically - - The Commissioners decision was about a boy who had a medical condition that needed him to follow a special diet - however eating the wrong food, whilst serious, could be counter balanced by adjusting his intake at the next meal. However, he awarded middle rate care for supervision requirements.
To my way of thinking, this little girl's condition is such that she requires supervision for the vast majority of the day to enable her to avoid a substantial and ever present threat to her well being. Tribunal took the view that supervision needs were limited to meal times - therefore low rate only.
I've asked for a full statement of reasons, but think I may have a problem finding grounds to get to Commissioners. In the meantime does anyone have anything which more closely defines the difference in supervision needs, ie, between low and middle rate, which I might be able to use to say tribunal misdirected itself when interpreting regs: I'm very loathe to let this one go, I had enough trouble with DBU losing Authorities etc !

Sorry Mike but you have a cast iron appeal against this tribunal if they awarded LRC for SUPERVISION at meal times only, because section 72 (1) (a) (i) (significant portion rule for LRC) is for ATTENTION only. (I may have misunderstood what you say about this, if so sorry)

I do hope you can argue this and get the Commissioner May phenylketonuria decision (which I presume is the one they quoted) disagreed with.

If the reaction is so strong surely any child (and probably lots of adults too) might well have supervisory needs between meals.

If they are saying it's attention at meal times, then that's an interesting point and could well be right for a child. As the parent you provide the food so is it directly connected with the bodily function of eating, and could count as attention? If so why is not three times in a day frequent attention anyway? More than twice (R(A)2/80) isn't it. And does a child need to eat only three times a day anyway? If a child has such a limited diet do they actually have to have snacks in between meals and then, surely, it's going to add up to frequent.

Good luck.

This is where it gets slightly confused - I went looking specifically for supervision, and the wording on the decision notice (which i should have quoted) actually says
Care Component -

"Lowest rate from 5.2.03 to 4.2.06 because she requires 'attention' for a significant portion of the day"

that's it.

To my mind supervision is required continually through the day in order to avoid substantial danger to the claimant. The Commissioner's decision I was using was CDLA/2188/2001 - Comm Powell - a case of a little boy who suffers from Phenylketonuria - I cannot see the difference between the facts in that case and this one - other than if my client eats a substance made with even a tiny amount of dairy product, she get an immediate and life threatening attack. In the case of the little boy, this did not happen immediately and could be countered by adjusting his diet: ie, the threat is not so immediate as it is in my clients case - she can't put her hand to her mouth without someone watching her.

When I get the statement of reasons, I'll have some idea of the logical process that led them to that decision: (you have to be so polite and subtle on this site nowadays otherwise shawn gets all twitchy).

(I know it's pretty pointless speculating on the reasons for a decision before you get them but it can be kind of fun too)

That sounds like an inverse CSDLA 160/95.(http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/decisions/archive_decisions/st96/st60_96.htm)

Apparently disputed in CSDLA/98/94 and R(A) 1/91 but I think they'e from the Ramsden point of view. (Worth throwing in?)

Also found http://www.nspku.org/Documents/DLA%20GUIDE.pdf