Help with Motobility appeal

[moggy490]

Hi i have today been refused the higher rate motorbility component for my daughter who is 11 years old and has got Global Learning Difficulties (well thats what the authorities put it down to anyway).

I really needed this component as i struggle very much with getting her to and from school as she cannot get there herself and i am not entitled to have a special bus pick her up and drop her off.

 

I rang the Dla line and asked why it had been refused and was told it was because she can walk basically.

i did explain that the issues are more down to her safety in the street ie; she has no road sense whatsoever and is obliviouse to any dangers around,she also exposes herself. Her social worker,occupational therapist and paediatrician have all said that she should be entitled in fact it was social services who told me to claim but all the lady on the phone said is that its a waste of time appealing because my daughter can walk.

 

please help.

[Bookworm]

The lady on the phone is giving you a load of bumph.

 

Whilst is is MORE difficult to get mobility awarded if the person can walk, it is not as clear-cut as that and one very recent decision actually gave mobility high rate to someone with Crohns who can walk and even run, but where the FEAR she may have an accident whilst outdoors ended up being sufficient to get awarded higher mobility.

 

The DWP are not going to help you, they're the ones who turned you down and they want to keep the awards as small as possible.

 

You have to ask them to look at the decision again first. They will, and say no again, at which point you will have to formally appeal. In the meantime, you can start building up your case for appeal, and I can help you with some pointers, I'll post these later. The more evidence you can provide and the more caselaw the better. Some specialist will take a while to get back to you with reports etc if you don't have them yet, so get all this ball rolling ASAP.

[moggy490]

Thanks for the quick response, all help is greatly recieved. i do have reports from from all involved and did send copies in with the claim also told them that she had now been statemented.

[Bookworm]

Unfortunately, Statement & DLA are often unrelated and one doesn't necessarily help with the other.

[moggy490]

oh ok but do i still appeal?

[Bookworm]

No, first you ask for them to review their decision and when they say no, then you appeal. Read the paperwork they sent you, it tells you the procedure.

[moggy490]

ok thanks

[moggy490]

Sent a letter today asking them to look at the claim again, wont hold my breath though.

[ManOfHarlech]

DLA Higher Rate Mobility is for people with physical disablities who either can't walk at all or virtually can't walk due to severe discomfort.

 

As sad as your daughter's plight is it would seem to me that the DLA are applying the right criteria.

 

The lower rate mobility is designed for indviduals who require someone to be with them whilst they are outside because they might injure themselves or get lost.

 

LRM sounds more like the benefit which your daughter should be entitled to.

[Bookworm]

DLA Higher Rate Mobility is for people with physical disablities who either can't walk at all or virtually can't walk due to severe discomfort.

That's ONE criteria, yes, but by no means the only one. Please don't try to put off someone from going further by giving them incomplete information.

[ManOfHarlech]

That's ONE criteria, yes, but by no means the only one. Please don't try to put off someone from going further by giving them incomplete information.

 

How about you filling in the gaps then?

 

If you have mobility needs

 

To get the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance, your disability must be severe enough for you to have any of the following walking difficulties, even when wearing or using an aid or equipment you normally use:

• you are unable or virtually unable to walk, or you have no feet or legs
  
• you are assessed to be both 100% disabled because of loss of eyesight and not less than 80% disabled because of deafness and you need someone with you when you are out of doors
  
• you are severely mentally impaired with severe behavioural problems and qualify for the highest rate of care component
  
• the effort of walking could threaten your life or seriously affect your health
  
• you need guidance or supervision from another person when walking out of doors in unfamiliar places
  

 

There are two rates of the mobility component depending on how your disability affects you:

• the lower rate, if you need guidance or supervision out of doors
  
• the higher rate, if you have any of the other, more severe, walking difficulties
  

 

You may be entitled to only the care component or only the mobility component, or you may be entitled to both.

 

Taken from http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/FinancialSupport/DG_10011816

Edited November 13, 2009 by ManOfHarlech

[moggy490]

How about you filling in the gaps then?

 

If you have mobility needs

 

 

 

To get the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance, your disability must be severe enough for you to have any of the following walking difficulties, even when wearing or using an aid or equipment you normally use:

• you are unable or virtually unable to walk, or you have no feet or legs
  
• you are assessed to be both 100% disabled because of loss of eyesight and not less than 80% disabled because of deafness and you need someone with you when you are out of doors
  
• you are severely mentally impaired with severe behavioural problems and qualify for the highest rate of care component
  
• the effort of walking could threaten your life or seriously affect your health
  
• you need guidance or supervision from another person when walking out of doors in unfamiliar places
  

 

There are two rates of the mobility component depending on how your disability affects you:

• the lower rate, if you need guidance or supervision out of doors
  
• the higher rate, if you have any of the other, more severe, walking difficulties
  

You may be entitled to only the care component or only the mobility component, or you may be entitled to both.

 

Taken from Disability Living Allowance - eligibility : Directgov - Disabled people

 

Severe behavoural problems? does her running into the road and having tantrums in the road not count to that?

Also i dont beleive that for 1 minute. i personally know sombody who gets high rate because her son is scared of dogs and wears an hearing aid.

Also alot of people who can run for a freebie yet get high rate mobility.

Edited November 13, 2009 by moggy490
more to add

[Bookworm]

You just have. The mental impairment is one of them. The case I mentioned in my first reply where the fear of an incident happening was sufficient ground is another one. I don't see the point in me repeating what I had already said. I was assisting Moggy to the best of my ability and you jumped in with a very negative opinion which was unhelpful as well as incorrect.

 

You however have now found out for yourself what the other criteria are, well done.

 

C/DLA/4565/2003 believes this approach is too generalised. It states that children who suffer from conditions such as autism may have a raft of symptoms which are relevant to their ability to walk but which may make them not wish to walk, including clumsiness and lack of coordination, high levels of anxiety and fearfulness, poor balance, muscle weakness, tiredness, lack of endurance, breathlessness and embarrassment. The decision directed a tribunal to pay careful attention to medical evidence.

 

Though the 'virtually unable to walk' test is quite restrictive, it is certainly possible that children on the autism spectrum may qualify for higher rate mobility this way and probably more so than under the route of severe mental impairment

 

Severe Mental Impairment

 

This is obviously a very distressing term and it will not be easy or pleasant for a parent to describe their child as being severely mentally impaired, though it is, unfortunately, the term laid down in the DLA regulations. Again, a test is applied to see if a child fits the criteria for satisfying the criteria of severe mental impairment or SMI for short. This test is laid out in the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991, Regulation 12, (5) and (6).

 

The regulations lay down five criteria, all of which must be satisfied to qualify for the higher rate of the mobility component under this route. They are:

that your child must be entitled to the higher rate care component of DLA

If a child receives the middle or lower rate care component this route cannot be pursued.

that your child suffers from "a state of arrested development or incomplete physical development of the brain which results in severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning" When looking at this, case law is useful as it concerns medical opinion. There has been a recent decision from Social Security Commissioner Jacobs which held that tribunals and decision-makers, where they accept that a claimant suffers from autism, must also conclude that s/he has either a state of arrested development or incomplete physical development of the brain. Accordingly, higher rate mobility claims made by such claimants should not be rejected on the basis that the claimant with autism does not have arrested development or incomplete physical development of the brain. The relevant case number for this decision is C/DLA/2288/2007.

However, this criterion has three parts, so even after establishing that a child is suffering from a state of arrested development of the brain, it still needs to be demonstrated that this leads to a severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning. Whereas it may not be too difficult to show that a child with ASD experiences an impairment of social functioning, it can be harder to explain how this leads to an impairment of intelligence.

 

The test of intelligence impairment used to be considered by the Department of Works and Pensions (DWP) as a child having an IQ of 55 or less. However, it is entirely possible that children with an autism spectrum disorder could have an IQ above this level but lack the social functioning skills of children in their peer group. A decision-maker or tribunal should take this into account when looking at this criterion and distinguish between a child's intelligence and their useful intelligence. The Court of Appeal held that severe impairment of intelligence should not be defined exclusively by reference to an IQ score (Megarry v Chief Adjudication Officer, 29.10.99, reported as R(DLA)1/00). Although this was a landmark case in terms of autism and DLA, it may not be relevant to all situations, as in many cases there will not be a test of IQ available. Also, in this particular case the commissioner did not actually overturn the decision in favour of the child, rather he stated that it should be re-heard by a new tribunal.

 

Children who have normal or above average intelligence can also be considered to have a severe impairment of intelligence if it can be demonstrated that they display a total lack of any sense of danger and inability to calculate risk (C/DLA/3215/2001).

 

that your child exhibits disruptive behaviour which is extreme

For this particular criterion, family evidence may be very important because a GP or other healthcare professional may not be able to comment on this in detail if they do not have regular contact with the child. If any professional can provide evidence confirming this - for example, a teacher or support worker at the school - then this would be very useful, but personal evidence from parents, other friends or relatives should also be taken into account

In commissioners decision C/DLA/2054/1998, a commissioner clarified the definition of the word extreme:"The word extreme is an ordinary English word, connoting behaviour which is wholly out of the ordinary. However, the claim is for the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance and it is the claimant's behaviour when taking advantage of the faculty of mobility, generally outside the home environment, which needs to be considered." In other words, the tribunal should concentrate on a child's behaviour in relation to the behaviour they display while walking, and the difficulties this causes, even if their behaviour is less extreme at other times.

that your child regularly requires another person to intervene and physically restrain them to prevent them causing physical injury to themselves or another or damage to property

In terms of case law, the same decision as above (C/DLA/2054/1998) can be relevant here. Alhough it related to a child with severe learning difficulties and not autism, it stated that: "the tribunal had erred in law in holding that, by taking hold of the claimants arm, to stop him causing further complications, the claimant's carer did not physically restrain him within the meaning of the regulations... I consider that physical contact which is necessary and effective to prevent a claimant from causing injury, or damage to property, amounts to physical restraint, irrespective of the degree of force which is needed to achieve that result." Later in this decision, the commissioner goes on to define the term 'requires', stating that this should mean 'reasonably requires' and that the purpose of such intervention must be to prevent physical injury or damage to property from occurring. There is no requirement that injury or damage would inevitably result.

Obviously, if a child does require more physical restraint than, for example, a hand on the shoulder, then this should be commented upon. For this criterion, as with all of the others mentioned here, any examples of specific incidents should be mentioned.

that your child's behaviour is so unpredictable that they require another person to watch over them whenever they are awake.

This can be a difficult part of the criteria to pass. You may want to mention here if your child requires constant supervision at school, though it can be difficult to satisfy this test if the decision-maker or tribunal take the view that the presence of someone being with them is enough to prevent disruptive behaviour. This is because a commissioners decision (R(DLA)7/02) stated that: "I think the clear meaning is that the watching over must be necessary in order that the person watching can intervene when the claimant actually does become disruptive. If the structured regime of the school is of itself sufficient to prevent the claimant becoming disruptive, this regulation, is, in my judgement, not satisfied."

Therefore, any examples of disruptive behaviour within the school environment, even when a child has been accompanied, may be relevant. Again, if a support worker or a teacher can provide supporting evidence to back this up it would be very helpful.

 

The above is taken from the helpsheet published by the NAS to help parents of children with autism if they want to try to go down the higher mobility route.

The full advice sheet can be found here:

The National Autistic Society - DLA high rate mobility: the basics

[moggy490]

Thanks bookworm you are a star for sticking with me on this:(

[ManOfHarlech]

Frankly Bookworm it is you that is now misleading moggy490. His child suffers from Global Learning Difficulties (also known as moderate learning difficulties) which is not severe mental impairment which would qualify for HRM. The lower mobility component allows for supervision care and pays £18.75 and that is the correct benefit. With proper supervision it would be up to the adult to ensure that the child didn't run into the road etc.

I would add that the DLA have agreed with me and applied the criteria that the child's disability is not a severe mental impediment and can walk properly without severe discomfort and is not entitled to HRM.

TBH you are being a little irresponsible by giving moggy490 false hope by applying criteria which is light years away from his circumstances and writing an essay in response won't change that in any way.

Edited November 13, 2009 by ManOfHarlech

[MIKEY DABODEE]

My nephew has been classed as having Global learning difficulties he has higher rate DLA Mobility

He has had the award for a few years

[moggy490]

Well there we go. Tbh i and everybody else except for the paediatrician believe that the global learning difficulties is an excuse for "we dont know what the hell is wrong"

If i spent a night typing away on here describing her i would say there would be so many different answers.

And someone that see,s her once a year to weigh and measure her can say she has global learning difficulties.

its a joke.

[ErikaPNP]

The rate of DLA applied to each individual case is determined upon how the condition affects a person's abilities, and the resulting care required - not what the diagnosis is. DLA can and is often paid to people who have no official diagnosis, so long as the need is apparent.

 

It is far too broad a generalisation to state that this child would not be entitled, when we are not privvy to her medical assessments, nor the benefit case file. You can take a group of people with the same diagnosis and look at their medical assessments only to discover that although they all have the same diagnosis, it affects each person differently.

 

Moggy - you have a right to appeal to an independent tribunal if the DWP do not overturn the decision upon reconsideration. Use that right.

 

There are major issues at the moment with DWP refusing DLA unreasonably and applying incorrect rates, over half of these cases are overturned at appeal stage. I suggest you look up some statistics which will demonstate this, and perhaps set you at ease.

 

That is not to say your daughter will qualify for HRM. She may, or she may not. There are only two sets of people who can decide this, and not one of them is on this thread. They are the ones within DWP who will reconsider your decision, or the tribunals service.

 

In view of the statistics which are in themselves evident of the incorrect decisions being made in regard to DLA I would be inclined to agree with Bookie (and must say that she is an excellent source of help in regard to DLA), and would always encourage a person to dispute the decision if they truely believe it to be incorrect.

 

Look at it this way; if you don't dispute it you may be losing out on benefit you are entitled to, to care for your child. If you do dispute it, you will get a final determination and can know that you followed the procedure to the end to get the best for your child. If you don't ask, you don't get. I would also advise you (if you are not aware already) that there are Welfare Rights reprentatives who can assist you throughout the appeals process and represent your daughter also at appeal. They are a free service which you can find via your local council.

 

You can ask the DWP to perform a reconsideration or appeal it straight away. If you ask for a reconsideration and they uphold the original decision, you would then have to submit an appeal. If you go straight to appeal, they must reconsider the decision nevertheless, before they put it forward to the tribunals service as reconsideration is an integral part of the appeals process.

 

Best Wishes

Erika.

[Bookworm]

Frankly Bookworm it is you that is now misleading moggy490. His child suffers from Global Learning Difficulties (also known as moderate learning difficulties) which is not severe mental impairment which would qualify for HRM. The lower mobility component allows for supervision care and pays £18.75 and that is the correct benefit. With proper supervision it would be up to the adult to ensure that the child didn't run into the road etc.

 

I would add that the DLA have agreed with me and applied the criteria that the child's disability is not a severe mental impediment and can walk properly without severe discomfort and is not entitled to HRM.

 

TBH you are being a little irresponsible by giving moggy490 false hope by applying criteria which is light years away from his circumstances and writing an essay in response won't change that in any way.

What's irresponsible in trying to get better help for our kids? The reality is that you don't know any more than I do what a tribunal will decide. I'd like to point out that Moggy mentioned in her first post that her child "exposes herself". That alone should go a long way towards fulfilling most or all of the criteria I have bolded in my earlier post.

 

Considering that I am currently involved in the tribunal process myself to get higher mobility for my autistic son, I think I probably have a better grasp of the difficulties and obstacles than most, actually. And ultimately, maybe Moggie will succeed, maybe she'll fail, but at least she will have tried and you can't say fairer than that. At least, I'm trying to help, not just saying "you can't get it" and possibly deprive her of a benefit she may be entitled to.

 

Moggy, I'm done here with this guy. Let me know if you need clarification on anything and don't lose heart.

[ManOfHarlech]

What's irresponsible in trying to get better help for our kids? The reality is that you don't know any more than I do what a tribunal will decide. I'd like to point out that Moggy mentioned in her first post that her child "exposes herself". That alone should go a long way towards fulfilling most or all of the criteria I have bolded in my earlier post.

 

Considering that I am currently involved in the tribunal process myself to get higher mobility for my autistic son, I think I probably have a better grasp of the difficulties and obstacles than most, actually. And ultimately, maybe Moggie will succeed, maybe she'll fail, but at least she will have tried and you can't say fairer than that. At least, I'm trying to help, not just saying "you can't get it" and possibly deprive her of a benefit she may be entitled to.

 

Moggy, I'm done here with this guy. Let me know if you need clarification on anything and don't lose heart.

 

As mentioned above none of us know the full facts about this child apart from the posted facts that she has been diagnosed with moderate learning difficulties and can walk perfectly normally without severe discomfort. The consultants or doctors whose care she is under must already know about the ‘exposing of herself’ and that hasn’t changed their opinion of her condition.

 

Where you are acting irresponsibly is by trying to override that diagnoses by implying the girl has a severe mental impairment for the purposes of claiming HRM.

 

A severe mental impairment is autism, schizophrenia or asperger syndrome not a condition which has hundreds of thousands of suffers up and down the country and whose parents get by perfectly OK without HRM. Also those children often return to mainstream classes with the proper support which doesn’t include labelling them ‘mentally impaired’ so the parent can have a free car.

 

Also your 'help' wasn't balanced in any way at all and you made an assumption that Moggy is entitled. As pointed out that is not yours or my decision to make and will be decided by an appeal or tribunal, but the sad fact is you have now added another unwanted label to this child for the purposes of beating the system.

 

That is not just irresponsible that is disgusting.

[moggy490]

thanks all for your positive and also negative input, i take everything on board and feel that in my heart of hearts and knowing my daughters needs far better than those who sit behind a desk saying yes and no and judging people from a few pieces of paper they read from and also depending what mood they are in, i will take this all the way so therefore any help from Bookworm or any other member is greatly recieved.

 

thanks all

[Bookworm]

Also your 'help' wasn't balanced in any way at all and you made an assumption that Moggy is entitled.

Did I? I don't think so, in fact, what I DID say is this:

Whilst is is MORE difficult to get mobility awarded if the person can walk, it is not as clear-cut as that

As pointed out

Yes, I believe *I* pointed that out to you. Where I encouraged Moggy to challenge the decision and gave her the reasoning why she should give it a shot, *you* on the other hand decided that the DWP MUST be right in their decision.

the sad fact is you have now added another unwanted label to this child for the purposes of beating the system.

Have I? I think that was actually the doctors who diagnosed the child with her difficulties. Furthermore, those of us who do know the unfair way in which the system work will confirm that without an established diagnosis (what you call a "label", both patronisngly and incorrectly), it is a lot harder to get the right box ticked when it comes to getting the help one may be entitled to. The pen-pushers at DWP have boxes to tick, and if you have the right "label", you pass. If you don't, sod off.

 

One day when I am not as tired, I'll tell you some of the experiences I have had when accompanying parents at tribunal, or when I went to Incapacity benefit "examinations" (there's a laugh) to assist people who had their benefit stopped and didn't know why.

That is not just irresponsible that is disgusting.

Well done. I'm sure this righteous indignation must make you feel really good about yourself. Of course, it achieves nothing, doesn't help anyone and rather throws a poor perspective on the alleged quality of your "advice", but that's ok. If it helps you get through the day, it's fine by me.

[bulldog07]

I would like to add that my daughter has di-george syndrome and has been refused any mobility and has been awarded middle rate care. I waited 11 weeks for this decision and have been fighting for 3 years to get a diagnosis. My daughter has severe learning difficulties, a possible heart defect, sever speech delay, communicates to sign, has severe behavioural issues which a lot is due to the frustration with her communication. Has a short achiles tendon, walks on tip-toes because everytime she puts her heels down it causes her severe discomfort. We are currently waiting for a cardiac assessment, physiotherapy where I have been told she will be assessed for splints to wear both day and night. She as curvature of her toes. She wakes frequently in the night(hence me writing on here at this time in the morning) she wets herself, wears nappies during the night as she soils herself, has poor immune system and picks up every bug there is. She has just been assessed in school by the ed physc. 2 tests carried out she was on the 1st percentile rank, another 11th and the other 12th. I survive every night on 4-5 hours sleep. I could go on and on and on. I am currently in the process of writing to my mp as I think its disgusting the way that parents are treated by the penpushers at the dla. They have no clue.

moggy490 you are more likely to be entitled to lower rate mobility as your daughter needs supervision when outdoors. You cant fight for higher rate mobility just because you want a new car.

Quote form moggy490 "did explain that the issues are more down to her safety in the street ie; she has no road sense whatsoever and is obliviouse to any dangers around,she also exposes herself."

My daughter is like this including exposes herself top and bottom plus she has the discomfort of walking, becomes breathless and tired and needs a buggy, yet she has not received any mobility rate! Her original diagnosis was global development delay like moggy490's daughter and now she has a rare genetic syndrome doesnt make a blind bit of difference to them. Maybe you should ask for your daughter to be referred to great ormond street?

At the end of the day its just a lottery with the dla, it shouldnt be but it is.

Edited November 18, 2009 by bulldog07

[Bookworm]

Well said Bulldog and sorry to hear about all your troubles. Did you actually appeal and go to tribunal?

[bulldog07]

Not yet! Only just find out that her rate is unchanged but I am going to. I've been fighting for the last 3 years I'm not gonna stop now!