Decision No: C1/97(AA)

	SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

	SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS
	(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

	SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS)
	(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

	ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE

	Application by the claimant for leave to appeal
	and appeal to the Social Security Commissioner
	on a question of law from the decision of the
	Belfast Disability Appeal Tribunal
	dated 18 September 1996

	DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1.	This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of a Disability Appeal Tribunal (DAT) relating to a claim for attendance allowance. 

2.	The claimant is a lady of 67 years of age.  She claimed attendance allowance in December 1995 as she was suffering from blindness.  Her claim was disallowed and a different Adjudication Officer reviewed that decision but did not revise it.  Claimant appealed against that decision to a DAT.

3.	The Tribunal recorded that the claimant suffered a stroke in 1995 with loss of vision.  She is now a registered blind person and has only a limited field of vision in her left eye.  She lives alone and has the assistance of a voluntary care worker 3 afternoons each week for 2 hours.  Her shopping is carried out by her home-help and by a neighbour.  The Tribunal made the following findings of fact:-

		"1.	Claimant is a registered blind person with only limited field
			of vision in left eye.

		 2.	Claimant lives alone and tends to most of her daily needs etc
			independently.

		 3.	Claimant does require occasional help with bathing and
			assistance in selection of her clothing daily."

	and disallowed the appeal and gave reasons as follows:-

		"The claimant suffers from profound visual loss with only limited
		field of vision in left eye but she by her own efforts has adopted
		remarkably to her situation and presently does not fulfil the
		statutory conditions for day attendance or night attendance 
		condition."

4.	Claimant then sought leave to appeal on the grounds that the Tribunal had erred in law and made a decision based on a mistake as to the relevant law.  Also that it failed to give adequate statement of the reasons for its decision and the findings of fact on which it was based.

5.	I arranged an oral hearing of the application at which claimant was not presented nor was she represented.  The Adjudication Officer was represented by Mrs Swann.  Mrs Swann said that she had a look at the decision and although the Tribunal had taken on board some Mallinson type needs she believed it did not consider the matter in sufficient depth.  Claimant stated in a doctor's report of 30 January 1996 that "I don't always see the fire and can spill the coals".  Mrs Swann said that this would tend to indicate that claimant required assistance.  She also had difficulty dealing with traffic.  Mrs Swann detailed the attention in connection with bodily functions which the claimant would reasonably require during the day based upon the evidence as follows:-

		".	Help with dressing/undressing - identifying colours/clean
			clothes etc. (AM & PM)

		 .	Help at mealtimes - cutting up and identifying food, where it
			is on the plate etc. (breakfast, lunch & dinner)

		 .	Refreshments in between (eg cups of tea, coffee etc.) advising
			her where it is and if there is any snack with it etc.
			(reasonably 3 times per day - mid AM, mid afternoon and mid PM).

		 .	Help with reading mail, answering correspondence etc.

		 .	Spoken guidance whilst walking outside - even with white stick
			(reasonably at least once per day).

		 .	Help to shop - identifying items, sell by dates etc.

		 .	Help to bathe and wash hair."

6.	I am quite satisfied that the concession by the Adjudication Officer is a proper one and that the Tribunal erred in law in not properly considering all claimant's needs.  Mr Shaw accepted that claimant is entitled to the attendance allowance.  She suffered her stroke in November 1995, and allowing for the qualifying period of 6 months, her entitlement should run from 1 May 1996 at the lower rate.

7.	Consequently for the reasons set out above, I allow the appeal, and set aside the decision of the Tribunal.  I think it is a proper case in which I should give the decision which the Tribunal should have made.   I am satisfied on the evidence that claimant is entitled to the lower rate attendance allowance from 1 May 1996 for life.

	(Signed):  C C G McNally
							
	COMMISSIONER

	28 July 1997