Hello all
I have just been to a tribunal to try to get a client's lower care DLA upped to middle care. I am pretty sure that the tribunal chair said in his summing up that having soneone at the end of a telephone line (or in this case a warden controlled flat), to aviod danger to himself did not consistute continually supervision or frequent attention. Not being a welfare rights officer with the relevant knowledge, I assumed that this is correct, as I could not see a tribunal chair getting this wrong, however I can't help feeling I have seen something somewhere relating to a commisioners decision that said needing to have someone at end of phone to avoid danger to yourself does consisitue continaully supervision. I am right, if so can anyone point me towards the relevant commssioners decision. Also, not having asked for a set aside before, is it possibe to get a written statement of what a tribunal chair said in a decision, so I can check that he did say what I thought he said.
Many thanks
|