We have a growing concern about approach of DMs to pre-lingually deaf clients. Following conversation with DM on a case and other recent experience they may be approaching the issue of care needs on the basis of what means of communiction the deaf person actually uses. As many deaf people do use text to communicate this seems to be being used as evidence that they can communicate and therefore dont qualify for care component, or for lower rate only (even if speach is limited, have limited ability with reading / writing in english , would normally use a signer to communicate with a hearing person etc etc).

DMs seem to ignore the clear case law that the issue is attention with a bodily function - namely hearing and/or speach. Communication is not a bodily function. The issue should not be the extent to which a person is able to communicate by what ever method but should address the case law etc. Given the extensive case law around deafness you might have thought DMs might actually have read some of it by now!

Are other advisers having a similar experience.

For us luddites who havn't learned to text does this mean we need help with communication and could qualify for DLA!?

R(A)1/03 deals specifically and in detail with help with "communication".

If you have two FLUENT signers then there is no help with bodily function.

However as soon as extra effort is involved for one of the parties
then even for signers there may be help with a bodily function.

The same with any other medium of communication you have to look to see if there is extra effort.

Thus if two people who didn't sign were communicating by writing to each other they would probably never be desribed as fluent, there would always be extra effort.

All texting is is a form of writing presumably the difference is that
there will be some text conversations which are taking place between two people who are very fast. There may be no extra effort and no qualification but if for one of them the process is laborious then
you have extra effort and it can count.

Hi Chris

I know that, you know that, tribunals know that, so why arn't DMs familiar with the case law?

Having visited DBU Blackpool & DBC Wembley and met with DM's I know the answer! Familiarity with case law, disability awarness etc doesn't appear to form a significant part of their training.

As my texting would be very labourious and require extra effort can I get DLA?

It will only get worse with all the proposed cuts Brace Yourself !!!!!

I know after to many years in this game I shouln't be surprised but the latest development in this case has me spitting nails!!! So I'm gunna share it to let off steam.....

Client was awarded DLA lrmc only for indefinite period on original claim in 1995. He requested a supersession for cc last year which was refused. He appealed. On chasing progress on the appeal I was informed that DM was considering a revision pending a hearing and was minded to award mrcc from 1995 (presumably for error of fact on care needs) but given arrears involved case would be test checked. From experience mrcc seems an appropriate award in this case. All well and good ....

Clnt has now received a decision dated last week taking away his award completely. Apparently the above positive decision was made in Jan (but never issued to client). On test check is was revised by a different DM and nil decision issued.

As Jan decision was never issued it is not a valid decision. However, DBU say client has to appeal new decision. After long discussion with an appeals team leader and quoting all the relevant DMA regs they finally agreed that as the revision decision actually issued was not in clients favour the original appeal will proceed to submission & hearing.

Can't wait to see the submission and how they justify this one!

We probably represent more cases at tribunal for pre-lingually deaf clients than for any other single disability (with 100% success rate on the issue). And they wonder why we get so frustrated with DBU!!

Rant over, time to go home!

The existence of mobile phones and texting, and my opinion, does not detract from the help 'reasonably required' test in respect of a bodily function. I would argue that DLA is to pay for the extra costs of having a disability. Texting is just one such extra cost.