If this is your first visit, check out the community guide. You will have to Join us or Sign in before you can post.
Receiving too many notifications? Adjust your notification settings.
If you drive, you can't be disabled?
Matilda
Member Posts: 2,616 Disability Gamechanger
I won my Tribunal appeal but both the doctor and the judge thought that driving indicates a low level of disability. I had to stress that I make only a few, very short car journeys a week. And a number of other community members have reported similar experiences. Some disabled people would be housebound if they didn't drive. Why is there this apparently new view that someone who drives can't be very disabled?
Replies
It does indicate that you can do things like plan and follow a journey and have a degree of concentration and possibly a few other things.
TK
Congratulations on your success! Its a bit like the good old "if you can use public transport, you can't be suffering from anxiety" thing, and "if you share your life with a dog you can't really be disabled", which seem to be just two of the new weapons of choice that "assessors" are trialling where I live. I suppose that the fact that there was a totally workable and functioning system called 'Motability' that was working just fine for years sort of proves that people suffering from disabling health conditions are, in fact, more than capable of driving. Well done Matilda, I hope your award gives you a better standard of life mate.
Thank you very much. Though these were Tribunal members, not assessors, challenging the level of my disability because I do drive a bit.
And, yes, what is the point of Motability if no disabled people are capable of driving?
There's a Native American proverb that says don't judge someone until you have walked two moons in their shoes.
In my case, I didn't even claim any lack of ability to plan journeys, etc, or have any concentration problems. The Atos paramedic put in her report that ability to drive indicates a certain level of strength which meant I couldn't have much difficulty washing, dressing etc. In my MR I pointed out that more complex movements are required to wash/dress than to drive an auto car with power steering. So, in the MR decision DWP dropped that and instead said that I had strength because I could do the easy-peasy exercises quite well. The paramedic didn't give me any difficult exercises because she wanted me to pass this test!
Actually I have a large automatic 4x4. I climb up to get into it and slide out of it onto my feet as my hips don't rotate far anymore. I can't drive a manual for long.
Perhaps this was a test to find out what the response would be. If so then that is really sad.
Perhaps - Tribunals are supposed to be challenging and play devil's advocate. They certainly gave me a grilling.
I expected an inquisition - but this line of questioning certainly could upset some people.
I did get the impression that the doc and the judge genuinely thought that driving capability can indicate low-level disability. Maybe this is a fashionable theory.
I agree. And there is a lack of disability awareness amongst people who ought to know better such as hospital staff. At a hospital I attend the phlebotomy department has decided that patients who attend for a blood test other than on the day of an outpatient appointment, instead of going to the main hospital rather should go to the phlebotomy walk-in centre "which is only three or four minutes' walk away"! Three or four minutes' walk for a young, fit person maybe. The main hospital is a much more convenient location for disabled people for many reasons. I pointed out to a phlebotomist that I have serious mobility difficulties and she looked stunned. No hospital outpatient could have serious mobility difficulties, could they? I still attend the main hospital for blood tests regardless of whether I have a doctor's appointment on that day. And this is a teaching hospital with a top reputation, 5* Trust, etc.
Hi @Matilda
Glad the appeal was won! But on this note - I totally agree that it is outrageous that Tribunals are making this kind of inference.
There has been a fair amount of mention on this forum of 'errors of law' which may be challengeable to the Upper Tribunal (I'm sure you've seen some of it!) - so if an appeal was refused on the basis of an assumption like this i.e. 'this person can drive therefore they can't be that disabled' then I think that would be an error of law which would give rise to a further right of appeal...
Although appealing to the UT is a pain as it drags the whole process out, a good thing is that the First-tier Judge who's decision is appealed no doubt learns a valuable lesson in assumptions!
You don't need to appeal though!