[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions >> [1996] NISSCSC C18/96(DLA) (10 May 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1996/C18_96(DLA).html Cite as: [1996] NISSCSC C18/96(DLA)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

[1996] NISSCSC C18/96(DLA) (10 May 1996)

 


Decision No: C18/96(DLA)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS)

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

DISABILITY LIVING 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 21 March 1995

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) which refused her either component of disability living allowance (DLA).
2. Briefly the facts are that the claimant is a lady of 45 years of age who is completely deaf and unable to speak. The Tribunal which heard her appeal from the Adjudication Officer's decision made the following findings of fact and reasons for that decision:-

Mobility

Findings of fact

"The claimant is profoundly deaf and cannot speak. She has been

deaf for almost 40 years. She was knocked down 20 years ago and

feels nervous walking in town. She complains of panic attacks.

Prefers to be accompanied out of doors for reassurance. She can

cook a meal on most occasions and her care needs day and night are

unremarkable. She lives with her 8 year old child. She has a

very attentive neighbour Mrs L…."

Reasons for decision

"Claimant can walk and she is not virtually unable to walk. She is

deaf but not blind. She is not severely mentally impaired. She had

a serious road traffic accident some 20 years ago and this has left

her understandably nervous when she is walking in town. For this

reason she would prefer to be accompanied for reassurance. That

however does not satisfy the conditions for payment of the low rate

of the Mobility Component."

Care

Findings of fact

"The claimant is profoundly deaf and cannot speak. She has been deaf

for almost 40 years. She was knocked down 20 years ago and feels

nervous walking in town. She complains of panic attacks. Prefers

to be accompanied out of doors for reassurance. She can cook a meal

on most occasions and her care needs day and night are unremarkable.

She lives with her 8 year old child. She has a very attentive

neighbour Mrs L…."

Reasons for decision

"The claimant can on most occasions prepare a cooked meal for

herself and she does not require in connection with her bodily

functions attention from another person for a significant portion

of the day. Her care requirements both day and night are

unremarkable."

3. I arranged an oral hearing at which claimant was not present but was represented by Mr Stockman of the Law Centre (NI) and the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr Shaw.
4. Mr Stockman opened by agreeing with Mr Shaw's comments that the lower rate mobility was not properly considered by the Tribunal relating to the guidance or supervision in connection with her deafness and that the Tribunal should have considered whether she required supervision to walk out of doors. He said that the Tribunal found that she preferred to be accompanied, he said that the proper question was whether claimant preferred to go out alone or if she can or will not go out when unaccompanied on unfamiliar routes. He said that the Tribunal needs to look at the subjective circumstances of the claimant ie her deafness and her anxiety. That it made no finding of fact that she did not require supervision out of doors and the findings were insufficient and that the reassurance in this case would include supervision.
5. Mr Stockman further argued that as far as the care component was concerned the Tribunal failed to deal with the need for communication and the attention which claimant would require from another person. Mr Shaw agreed with Mr Stockman that the findings were inadequate and that the Tribunal should have taken into account the attention and supervision which she would require when out of doors and should also have given more consideration to and made findings relating to the attention which she required in connection with her communication needs.
6. At the hearing I granted leave to appeal and both parties consented to me treating the application as the appeal. I have considered all that has been said and I have read all the documents. I am satisfied that the Tribunal erred as both Mr Shaw and Mr Stockman have argued. The Tribunal should have made findings relating to her need for supervision out of doors and also for her need for assistance in communication. I therefore allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the Tribunal and refer the matter back to be reheard by a differently constituted Social Security Appeal Tribunal.

(Signed): C C G McNally

COMMISSIONER

10 May 1996