The Upper Tribunal has awarded the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) to a KDR client with severe ADHD with low IQ, speech and language difficulties, behavioural issues, anxiety, low self-esteem and autistic spectrum disorder traits.

The appeal was supported by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who had commissioned a specialist medical report to help them decide whether to do so.

The case hinged around whether ADHD could constitute a “state of arrested development or incomplete physical development of the brain” under regulation 12(5) of the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991. In this particular case the Upper Tribunal decided that it did.

To get higher rate mobility on this basis any claimant must also have “severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning”.  It’s also only possible to get higher rate mobility via this route if higher rate care is also in payment.

It is likely that this judgement will only benefit children at the most extreme end of the ADHD spectrum. To get higher rate mobility a claimant must not only demonstrate “severe mental impairment”, but also very severe behaviour problems.

You can read the full judgement here.

Proposed changes announced last week by Chancellor of the Exchequer, The Rt. Hon. Rachel Reeves MP, hatched with Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, The Rt. Hon. Liz Kendal MP are unworkable.

They propose that all PIP claimants from some point next year will need at least one four points descriptor to get PIP. This could only conceivably apply to new claimants.

This proposal would have arbitrary and perverse results. This is because many severely disabled people get the daily living rate through aggregating 4 or more 2 points scores. A common combination being needing an aid to cook, wash/bathe, use the toilet and dress / undress. Some wheel-chair users have this combination.

The proposal as announced would therefore appear to be discriminatory against physically disabled people, as opposed to, say, sensory impaired claimants who would be more likely to have at least one four points plus descriptor. For example, a deaf person needing communication support will always have at least one four points descriptor.

Any changes along the lines proposed would likely swamp the DWP with applications for reviews, with mandatory reconsideration waiting times already reaching 15 weeks. The appeals system would likely be similarly even more overwhelmed than it is already. Many appellants are already waiting in excess of 12 months for first-tier hearings.

Accordingly the proposals appear unworkable. They also unfairly penalise disabled people who already struggle with other pressures, such as difficulties accessing services, health-care and employment.

Expect resignations from those responsible for these unfair, unreasonable and unworkable proposals.

Please write to your MP to point out the situation – a template letter can be found here. Sorry it is PDF because our website doesn’t accommodate word documents.

Kester Disability Rights (KDR) regularly has cause to enlist the help of clients' Members of Parliament.

Despite all the negativity in the media, we have found every MP we have ever contacted to be very helpful and supportive.  This covers MPs in many parts of the UK, and indeed MSPs. 

MPs now face risks more acute than ever before with both a Conservative MP (David Amess) and a Labour MP (Jo Cox) having been murdered in the course of their work for their constituents in recent years. 

We have found MPs from all parties to be equally committed to helping their constituents.

KDR will always work positively with MPs as part of our Parliamentary Democracy and supports the work they do in these difficult (and often dangerous) times. 

We are having to increase our fees to 35% because of the business not being financially viable at 30%.  Our hard working and modestly paid staff have had pay cuts in some months. 

But there is no risk to customers because fees only become due if and when we win your case.  If we do not win you pay nothing at all.  And if we win a case with no money in it then there is also nothing to pay.  This is because we only charge people who we know have the money to pay, because we have got it for them.  So everyone still gets at least 65% of a sum they wouldn't have otherwise got.

We remain not for profit and money raised is for running the business.  We have no other income except for fees income.  Unlike many of our competitors we do not have a minimum charge.  We also never demand money up front, or at any other point than when there is a pot to charge against. 

We do not have executive salaries and pensions, unlike many registered charities (particularly national disability charities) who typically pay senior staff as the absolute priority, even when cutting services. 

No customer who has signed a fees agreement at a lower rate is affected. 

We have received a number of enquiries from people upset by what they think is an imminent risk of vouchers replacing cash for disability benefits. 

There can be little doubt that the internet, and particularly social media, is bad for mental health. 

The origin of this story, often presented as "click bait" is a Green Paper launched in the death-throws of the outgoing Conservative Government. 

You can find the consultation here.

Even in the highly unlikely event that the policy was pursued it would likely take many years to translate into anything concrete. 

When you think that Universal Credit was lauched in 2010, with many claimants still not transferred to it, you will realise there is no imminent liklihood of vouchers replacing cash for PIP.  For an idea to become law there is a lengthy Parliamentary process.  And then implementation of social security changes typically takes further time measured in years.  So the time between a policy being lauched and claimants getting a letter about changes is typically approaching, or over, a decade.  And unless, or until, you get a letter, changes in social security do not affect you.

So please don't have nightmares, do sleep well.

Over the last few years we have seen an increasing number of PIP appeals where the DWP alleges that a disabled person who is able to provide care to another disabled people must be exaggerating their needs for the purpose of claiming PIP.  The First-tier Tribunal has occasionally accepted such an argument despite the lack of legitimate basis for it.  This is because disabled carers have been around for a long time and have always been allowed to claim both disability benefits (PIP and DLA) as well as Carers Allowance (CA). 

There has been no discussion in Parliament about the alleged inconsistency between claiming PIP and CA with the relevant laws remaining constant back to a time when disabled carers claiming both disability benefits and CA was never an issue.

A Kester Disability Rights client has won her case in the Upper Tribunal to reinforce that the First-tier Tribunal cannot place undue weight on caring responsibilities when deciding a PIP appeal.  Unfortunately, the judgement stopped short of acknowledging this is a matter of wider public importance with disabled people potentially being deterred from claiming CA and/or PIP.  And that happening in the context of more responsibility being placed on disabled carers by a shortage of social care provision. 

Indeed, with the kind support of Matthew Fraser from Landmark Chambers the case was put that caring duties are more likely to exhaust a disabled person such that they are less able to reliably carry out the PIP activities - the reverse of the DWP position.  But regrettably the Upper Tribunal declined to see the matter as one of wider public importance, finding that existing case-law is sufficient.

You can read the judgement here.