Application No:  A82/99-00(DLA)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1998

DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE

Application by the above-named claimant for
leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner
on a question of law from a Tribunal's decision
dated 1 July 1999

DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1.	This is an application, by the claimant, for leave to appeal against the decision dated 1st July 1999 of a Disability Appeal Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") sitting at Belfast.  That Tribunal had decided that the claimant was entitled to the middle rate of the care component of Disability Living Allowance from and including 18th October 1998 (with the exception of a date correction it was substantially affirming a decision of an Adjudication Officer in so far as it related to this component).  The Tribunal also decided that the claimant was entitled to the low rate of the mobility component of the said allowance from and including 18th October 1998 but not entitled to the higher rate of the mobility component.  The claimant's application for leave related to the element of the decision that she was not entitled to the higher rate of the mobility component.  Having perused the papers I can ascertain no other issue in the case.

2.	I held a hearing of the application, at the claimant's request.  The claimant attended accompanied by her daughter who represented her.  Mrs Gunning attended to represent the Adjudication Officer.

3.	My decision is contained in the last paragraph.

4.	The claimant alleged that the Tribunal had breached the rules of natural justice in making a decision supported by no or insufficient evidence.  She stated that having been awarded the higher rate of the mobility component in the past it was impossible that her condition could have changed for the better as she grew older.

5.	Before me the claimant's daughter indicated that her mother had never had a straight answer as to why the Tribunal did not reconsider the mobility component element.  She confirmed that she was aware that the Tribunal had awarded the lowest rate of the mobility component but the claimant had always contended that the higher rate should have been looked at.  The representative stated that the Tribunal had looked at the mobility component but because they did not see the claimant (she did not attend the Tribunal hearing) had concluded that she was entitled to the lower rate of the mobility component.

6.	The claimant's daughter also stated that the Tribunal had said that it would obtain a medical report but that the claimant was never examined.  In the course of the presentation of this argument the claimant and her daughter were shown the letters of 24th May 1999 and 28th April 1999 indicating that the claimant had not consented to the medical examination.

7.	The claimant herself was asked if she wished to add anything to her daughter's presentation and said that she had always had to fight for any rights that she had and that she could not understand why this should be so when others appeared to obtain compensation readily.

8.	Mrs Gunning stated that the claimant had made a renewal claim for Disability Living Allowance by submission of a form on 2nd September 1998.  Her previous award had been from 18th October 1993 to 17 October 1998 and had included an award of the higher rate mobility component.  The Tribunal dealing with the renewal claim had no option but to decide the matter on the evidence available to it.  It had reached a clearly reasoned decision which was not erroneous in law and Mrs Gunning opposed the application.

9.	On perusing the papers in this case it is quite apparent that the Tribunal did the best it could to obtain additional medical evidence but that the claimant did not consent to the medical examination.  I therefore am unable to find any error of law in the Tribunal proceeding without any further medical evidence.

10.	Similarly I do not find any error in the manner in which the Tribunal looked at the mobility component.  I am satisfied that it did consider whether or not there was entitlement to the higher rate of the mobility component.  I am satisfied further that on the evidence available to it it was quite justified in its conclusion that the claimant did not satisfy the entitlement conditions for the higher rate of that component.

11.	It is correct that the claimant had had an earlier award of that component and in light of that it would perhaps have been good practice for the Tribunal to have made some allusion to that previous award and to have stated simply that for the period before it it did not consider the conditions were satisfied.  However, the reasons for the Tribunal's decision are very clear and very well recorded.  In substance they are that the claimant though she had restricted mobility nonetheless had walking ability well in excess of that which would qualify her for the high rate of the mobility component.

12.	I would comment that not everyone who has some restriction on walking can qualify for the high rate of the mobility component.  It is only persons who are either unable or virtually unable to walk who can qualify and virtually unable to walk means very restricted walking indeed.  On the evidence before the Tribunal it is quite apparent why it concluded that the claimant had not satisfied this condition and indeed it would have been difficult to see what other conclusion was open to it.

13.	I am unable to ascertain any error in the Tribunal's decision in terms of a breach of the rules of natural justice.  The claimant was afforded full opportunity to make a case and indeed the Tribunal appears to have very fully investigated the matter.

14.	I am unable to ascertain any arguable error in the Tribunal's decision either as alleged by the claimant or in any other way.  I consider that Mrs Gunning's submission is correct and I refuse the application for leave to appeal.

	(Signed):  M F Brown

	COMMISSIONER

	5 June 2000