[2007] NISSCSC C19_06_07(DLA) (27 June 2007) 

Decision No: C19/06-07(DLA)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1998

DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE

Appeal to a Social Security Commissioner
on a question of law from a Tribunal's decision
dated 28 March 2006

DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1	This is an appeal by the claimant, leave having been granted by the legally qualified panel member, against a decision dated 28 March 2006 of an appeal tribunal sitting at Newry.  The tribunal had disallowed the claimant’s appeal against a departmental decision dated 18 August 2004 and decided that the claimant was entitled to the lowest rate of the care component of disability living allowance (DLA) from 26 October 2004 to 25 October 2008 and that he was not entitled to the mobility component of DLA from and including 26 October 2004.	

2	The claimant is represented by Mr O’Neill of Newry and Mourne District Citizens Advice Bureau.   The Department is represented by Mr Sloan of its Decision Making Services Branch.	

3	The background to the case is that the claimant suffered a serious injury to his left arm which has left him with a loss of function.  He had a graft from his leg to his arm and as well as the functional problems from the arm he also claimed to have mobility problems.  The tribunal accepted there were care needs but not to the level claimed by the claimant.	

4	The grounds of appeal were fourfold.  Firstly, the tribunal had concluded that the claimant could avoid the need for assistance with medication by avoiding childproof bottles and blister packs.  In Mr O’Neill’s submission, the tribunal erred by reaching this conclusion without enquiry as to whether there were young children in the household.

5	The second ground was of a similar nature.  The tribunal had concluded that the claimant could avoid the need for assistance when tying shoe laces by the use of slip-on shoes.  In Mr O’Neill’s submission it should not have reached this conclusion without having explored whether the claimant had foot problems which might require him to wear lace-up shoes.	

6	The third ground was that, as a result of his disability, the claimant always needed help cutting up food, whereas the tribunal concluded that he only needed “occasional” help so to do.  Mr O’Neill submitted that the tribunal had erred in reaching this conclusion without further investigation.	

7	The fourth ground was that the tribunal had concluded, without adequate exploration, that the claimant had fallen while playing a game of football.	

8	Mr Sloan initially gave some support to grounds one and three in observations dated 5 January 2007 but eventually resiled from this approach in observations dated 26 April 2007.

9	With regard to the first ground, Mr Sloan submitted that the tribunal’s conclusion was not unreasonable as other precautions would be possible to prevent children having access to medicines.  While it would have been desirable for the tribunal to explore the matter therefore, not so doing did not vitiate the decision.	

10	As regards the second ground Mr Sloan opposed this ground on the basis that there was no indication that the claimant required any special type of shoe.
As regards the third ground Mr Sloan submitted that it was reasonable for the tribunal to conclude that not all meals would require the assistance which the claimant stated he requires at mealtimes.	

11	On the evidence before it, the tribunal concluded that the claimant did not require frequent attention throughout the day.  This conclusion did not require further investigation and the reasons given were adequate.	

12	I am in agreement with Mr Sloan in relation to the first ground.  It is simply a matter of ordinary common sense that medicines be kept away from children.  This can be done, for example, by keeping them in a locked cupboard, or out of reach or in the possession of the owner.  I see no reason why this matter had to be further explored.

13	As regards the second ground I consider there to be no error and certainly not such as to vitiate the decision.  The claimant himself did not say he could only wear lace-up shoes and any help required to lace them (bearing in mind the continued use of the right hand) would be minimal.	

14	As regards the third ground, I am largely in agreement with Mr Sloan.  It is clear that the tribunal considered not all meals required food cut up, for example, casseroles, sandwiches, cereals, soup etc.  Again, in any event, the time and frequency would not support the conclusion that frequent attention throughout the day was required.

15	I also agree that the tribunal was entitled to its conclusions relating to the mobility component. There is adequate evidence in the General Practitioner’s notes (which appear to have been viewed by the claimant and his representative) to indicate that the claimant fell when playing a game of football.  Accordingly I conclude that there is no substance in the fourth ground.	

16	In my view, the tribunal was entitled to conclude there was no entitlement to the higher or lower rate of the mobility component.	

17	The reasons are adequate to explain the decision which is sustainable on the accepted evidence.  The appeal is dismissed.

J A H Martin QC
Chief Commissioner

27 June 2007

C190607DLA.MB