I've got an appeal for a client who is completely deaf, but registered as partially sighted. We're trying to get her high rate mobility and care (she's on middle care/low mob). Can anyone tell me if she HAS to be registered blind to get the mobility component? Obviously if so then we don't have a case for mob unless we can get the registration changed, but it does say in the Social Security General Benefits regs (schedule 2) that 100 % loss of vision means ' loss of sight to such an extent as to render the claimant unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential'. My client would deffo satisfy the criteria on those grounds. Has anyone been down this route before ? Were you successful ? Any suggestions gratefully received, Alison.

I don't think there is any requirement to be registered as blind, but according to CPAG handbook (p.131) the definition in Schedule 2 is the same as that which is used to register someone as blind. Would suggest trying to get registration changed in tandem with going for HRM.

If the registration is changed, then your client would have to make a new claim and would have to satisfy the forwards test anew, as the tribunal cannot consider 'circumstances not obtaining at the date of the decision'.

We've had this arguement more than once with tribunals, but at the end of the day the regs are reasonably clear on the mobility criteria -As we read it to qualify for the high rate Mob you have to be suffering from a physical disablement which prevents you from walking any appreciable distance because of severe discomfort, breathlessness etc: partial blindness does not prevent you from walking - the attention and/or supervision required, indoors or out, is in connection with the bodily function of seeing.

I'm not completely certain, but I think Alison's original posting was with a view to the client qualifying for the higher rate of the mobility component because they are both deaf and blind.

If this condition is satisfied and the effect of those disabilities means that the claimant cannot walk outdoors without the help of another person, entitlement to the higher rate mobility component is satisfied. This means that you do not have to go down the line of virtual inability to walk or inability to walk etc.

With regard to Tony's point about the possible need for a new claim, it may well be raised as an issue by a Tribunal. However, if the client satisfies the " loss of vision" requirements at the date of the decision appealed against, contained in the Regs and there is no requirement to be registered blind, then I do not see that this would be that much of an obstacle.

The client's circumstances would not necessarily have changed if they become registered blind after the date of the decision and it could be argued that becoming registered blind subsequently is not material in determining the loss of vision requirements for the mobility component, as it is not a requirement of the Regs.If their disability is such that the loss of vision is assessed at 100% and loss of hearing at 80% at the date of decision and the Tribunal accepts this, then they have jurisdiction and can take account of this when looking at the higher rate of the mobility component on this basis.Therefore a new claim would not be necessary. I accept that evidentially it may be strongly advisable to try and get the registration changed as ultimately it will add more weight to the client's case at Tribunal.

Don't know whether this is of any help. Good luck with the appeal.

Mark

Apologies and of course you are correct in respect of this particular case.

There are of course varying degrees of partial sightedness - however, if the loss of vision is to such a degree that for practical purposes the person cannot make out with enough clarity objects any further than a few feet in front of them, then we would argue that to all intents and purposes they are blind: certainly to the extent that they could not see street furniture, kerbstones, oncoming traffic etc etc. Assuming that the loss of useful sight did not occur suddenly, then could one not obtain medical evidence to the effect that this state of affairs existed prior to the decision under appeal....

In the notes to reg 12 (DLA) regs, there is more information about assessing 100% disability for loss of vision and a couple of reported decisions for DLA. See page 557 of Bonner.