Reasonably required

CDLA/3034/2000
Does anyone have a copy of this decision regarding help reasonably required?

cheers

The most I can find online is this:

In CDLA/3034/2000 the Commissioner held, in relation to a claimant who ‘struggles
a lot of the time’ with everyday activities, that: ‘The tribunal should have
investigated the extent to which the claimant has to struggle, and given a more
detailed explanation why help was not reasonably required’.

I found this at http://www.nwdial.org.uk/training files/improving_the_odds.pdf

Other cases I trot out regularly against DWP decision letters that say “You can manage your care needs independently” etc. are:

CA/1481/03 - an old woman who insisted she managed just fine and said she wanted help with the cleaning and gardening. It includes the sentence “Attendance Allowance (ie. middle- and highest-rate care DLA) is awarded to people who reasonably require (even if they do not actually get) help”.
R(A)1/73 - very old, but never superceded I don’t think: “the question of course is whether supervision was required, not whether it was in fact provided”
CA/14336/1996 - re: finding ways to cope, criticises a tribunal because they “penalised her for being stoic and devising various ways of overcoming her difficulties”.
CDLA/205/2005 - paragraphs 21 and 22
CDLA/2481/95 - “how long it took the claimant to attend to his bodily functions” is important in determining “reasonably required”

Hope this helps.

Hi guys

Thanks for all the responses. Just a quick update; haven’t heard from my client but have had a copy of the tribunal decision today and they have adjourned the hearing till Thursday 18th August so client can attend with her rep. Just need to go and make sure I’m not on hoilday! What would be the chances….

Cheers Sarah