I have been assisting a mother of 2 children aged 11 & 15 both who suffer from ADHD & ODD. The15 yr old was awarded middle rate care at a tribunal in 2007 at its firstrenewal the award continued and expired on the 14th March this year.On completing the renewal application the decision maker decided the child no longer qualified for DLA. I sought a review of that decision informing the DWP that we were in the process of obtaining supporting evidence which might take us beyond the 28 day period but this would be forwarded as soon as we had it, I further requested a written statement of reasons along with any third party evidence they had used in making there decision to withdraw the award. In the written statement of reason they stated that the child did not need help with his bodilyfunctions and there was no evidence of behavioural or learning difficulties this statement was ludicrous to say the least especially as at the 2007 tribunal the DWP had obtained a medical report from the child’s consultant which clearly showed his prognosis both short term and long term. The evidence that the DWP relied on for withdrawal of the award was a school report that they had obtained. This is a standard form that the DWP send to the school and can be very misleading to the report writer on researching precedent case law I found two important rulings that had been given BodilyFunctions: CSDLA/133/2005(Whether Functions, Of The Brain Are Bodily Functions) In this particular case the following was stated and found: Paragraph (26) of this Judgement states the following: As was common ground before us, we consider that prompting, and motivating are capable of constituting attention in connection with an impaired Bodily function SchoolReports: CDLA/3779/2004 states that a child with a disability may not need supervision over and above that which is normally given to all other children while attending school but may need supervision beyond that needed by other children when outside the school environment in order to avoid substantial danger to themselves or others. Evidence from a school should therefore be considered along with all the other evidence concerning a child’s care needs in deciding whether the claimant can safely be left unsupervised and whether the child requires substantially more care from another person than children of their age would normally require. We then sought a more accurate school report from the school and supporting evidencefrom the GP both which were freely given and clearly show that this child needs more help and supervision than a normal child of his age. The bad news is the review took place before we could submit this evidence and the original decision to withdraw the award was up held we have now sought a reconsideration including all the evidence we have obtained. I have also made an application for the 11yr old child and again they have attempted to use the same 2 reasons given in the case of the 15yr old child along with a school report only this time on seeking a review they have come unstuck because we have made them aware of the precedent case law and they have now requested a medical report from the child’s consultant before giving their decision on review. I would advise any parent who has a child with ADHD or ODD and may have had an award with drawn or refused to either reapply or seek a written statement of reasons along with any third party evidence on which they rely because I have no doubt many claims are been refused because of a school report and please spread the word on this case in order that we can stop this unlawful approach to denying benefit by the DWP decision makers