PIP, DLA and AA
If this is your first visit, check out the community guide. You will have to Join us or Sign in before you can post.

Today received Statement of Reasons

rbzrbz Member Posts: 96 Courageous
Finally after 23 weeks waiting received Statement of reasons.
During Tribunal hearing I asked repeat almost every question, and some questions asked repeat 2 or more times, but Statement of reasons contains information, that I asked repeat just ONE question.
By this reason I not awarded points for Washing and Bathe, because they assumed I can hear smoke alarms and etc.
Please advice how to work with complete wrong statement  - 'Just once asked repeat question during Appeal Hearing'.
My case go to Upper tribunal, because of many important things not taken into account during Tribunal Hearing.
Can't believe that Tribunal members are liars.

Replies

  • janer1967janer1967 Member Posts: 9,104 Disability Gamechanger
    Hi @rbz Welcome to the community, I am sorry to hear about your tribunal experience and statement of reasons Im sorry but I dont really have any experience of upper tribunal process but Im sure there are people on here who can advise . I don't understand though how not being able to hear alarms would give points for washing and bathing (but I could be wrong). Good luck with your case and hope someone can give you more detailed advice
  • skullcapskullcap Posts: 172 Member
    edited February 2020
    With severe hearing loss in both ears you would be expected to have been prescribed two hearing aids. Having one such aids gets you no points.
    In addition there are many aids and adaptions that you could buy that would get round the problem of not hearing the telephone, door bell or even the smoke alarm. All such aids provide for a flashing light in the room(s). They are easy to fit and inexpensive to buy. Claiming that you cannot bathe alone just in case you can't hear the smoke alarm will be met with the challenge to get one of these aids fitted.
  • rbzrbz Member Posts: 96 Courageous
    edited February 2020
    @skullcap Judge assumed that I MUST HEAR smoke alarms when wash and bathe, because during Tribunal hearing I asked repeat just 1 question. And there no evidences. Whish is nonsense, because during tribunal I asked repeat most questions and some questions asked repeat 2 - 3 times. Also my medical records clear state moderate to severe hearing loss.
  • skullcapskullcap Posts: 172 Member
    rbz said:
    @skullcap Judge assumed that I MUST HEAR smoke alarms when wash and bathe, because during Tribunal hearing I asked repeat just 1 question. And there no evidences. Whish is nonsense, because during tribunal I asked repeat most questions and some questions asked repeat 2 - 3 times. Also my medical records clear state moderate to severe hearing loss.
    That is as maybe but given the audio assessment you would have had to confirm severe deafness you should have been sent a letter telling you of the findings and to make another appointment at the hospital audio to have two hearing aids tuned and fitted for you. They did with me. Are you saying that even with both aids you could not hear or clearly understand what was being said at the tribunal? If not and despite you pointing out to them in not hearing properly the Tribunal would be wondering as to why then were you not wearing the aids. Simply asking them to repeat themselves would not be suitable evidence to show severe deafness.
  • rbzrbz Member Posts: 96 Courageous
    Tribunal ignored everything who can give points. I awarded only 2 points for communication, even I can't understand complex verbal information. During communication I always use lipreading, but Statement of reasons not contain any information about lipreading.
    Hearing aid not helpful for me, because noises distract me and I can't concentrate during conversation.
  • skullcapskullcap Posts: 172 Member
    rbz said:
    Tribunal ignored everything who can give points. I awarded only 2 points for communication, even I can't understand complex verbal information. During communication I always use lipreading, but Statement of reasons not contain any information about lipreading.
    Hearing aid not helpful for me, because noises distract me and I can't concentrate during conversation.
    The reason that lipreading was not considered is because it is not a system that is accepted by the DWP.
    Signing is so that should be used instead.
    If you cannot hear properly through the two prescribed hearing aids then you should go back to the provider and have them tuned accordingly.
    With my two I have three different settings which I adjust to the circumstances at the time. They were provided by the Audio Dept at the hospital.
  • cristobalcristobal Member Posts: 966 Disability Gamechanger
    @ilovecats - I did wonder how this is assessed.

    Thinking logically if you check round the house to make sure you've not left a pan on the gas etc beforehand, the chances of the house catching fire whilst you are in the shower seems to be millions to one...
  • rbzrbz Member Posts: 96 Courageous
    @cristobal
    During showering everyone must remove hearing aids. Also there not only fire risk, but these are some other problem.like someone can enter house and etc.
    Also person with hearing loss can't safe cross road - there also very low chance if vehicle hit person.

    At this moment big problem with interpretations - one person awarded points for some activities, but another person not awarded even both persons have absolute same problems during daily living.
    In my case Tribunal stated that I asked repeat just 1 question, but really during hearing I asked repeat most questions.
    Under every activity they stated - no evidence, because my GP not included into medical records about problems with daily living.
    Tribunal panel members was advised that there no time to discus about daily living problems, because 10 minute appointment too short. During appointment we discuss about health problem and treatment.
    My GP know about problems during my daily living, but I don't know why information not available on my medical records. Maybe GP decide that this information not important.

    Now preparing papers for leave to appeal to Social Security Commissioner, because found errors in law under each description.
    Plenty wrong information like:'He was issued with hearing aid for both ears' - I never had hearing aids for both ears. Tribunal fully ignored medical records from ENT and Physiotherapy.
    Hope next week all papers ready for posting.
  • poppy123456poppy123456 Member Posts: 22,218 Disability Gamechanger
    It's not their responsibility to prove you qualify, it's yours. You should have provided that evidence to them. It's very rare that a GP will know how your conditions affect you against the PIP descriptors.

    When i'm at home, i will always lock my front and back door, this way no one can enter, even if i didn't, when i'm in the shower i definitely wouldn't leave my door unlocked because i wouldn't hear them if i'm in the shower and i don't have a hearing problem. I'm sure most people would hear much when they are in the shower.

    For a Tribunal you need to prepare your case before the hearing takes place not leave it for the day of the hearing so that you can discuss what descriptors apply to you.

    A poorly presented case often leads to refusal and this could have been what happened here.


    Community champion and proud winner of the 2019 empowering others award. This award was given for supporting disabled people and their families for the benefit advice i have given to members here on the community.
  • rbzrbz Member Posts: 96 Courageous
    @poppy123456

    My Representative from local Citizens Advice Bureau not suggested which information useful and which information useless during Tribunal hearing.
    Now with extra evidence preparing for further Appeals Tribunal.
  • poppy123456poppy123456 Member Posts: 22,218 Disability Gamechanger
    That isn't an error in law. If that was me and i'm refused next time then i'd be finding myself a different representative. Sounds like they didn't do what they should have done and could have cost you an award because of a poorly presented case.
    Community champion and proud winner of the 2019 empowering others award. This award was given for supporting disabled people and their families for the benefit advice i have given to members here on the community.
  • rbzrbz Member Posts: 96 Courageous
    @poppy123456
    When wrote 'ERROR IN LAW' I keep in mind content from Statement of reason.
    SOR stated - I ask repeat only one question, but during hearing I asked to repeat almost every question. My wife can confirm that.
    Tribunal not considered any medical records from ENT and Physiotherapy, and decision based only on medical records from GP which not contain all information.
    Medical records from ENT and Physiotherapy contains much more information especially if I bypass my GP when visit audiology department.
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,926 Disability Gamechanger
    Oh dear. Lots of stuff to fix here so I’m going to stage an intervention :)

    1 - @rbz did you ask for the statement of reasons AND the record of proceedings? The former is the judge retrospectively writing up the reasons for the decision on request. The latter are their notes on the day.

    2 - it is not necessarily an error of law to incorrectly record an event in the hearing and there’s no requirement at all to record how many times someone did or didn’t ask for repetition. That’s an error of fact and you can’t go to UT on it. You may be able to argue an error of law on the basis that the tribunal inferred a lesser risk because you appeared okay in the tribunal hearing. It’s a subtle distinction but one an advice worker should be able to make.

    3 - skullcap said:
    With severe hearing loss in both ears you would be expected to have been prescribed two hearing aids. Having one such aids gets you no points.
    In addition there are many aids and adaptions that you could buy that would get round the problem of not hearing the telephone, door bell or even the smoke alarm. All such aids provide for a flashing light in the room(s). They are easy to fit and inexpensive to buy. Claiming that you cannot bathe alone just in case you can't hear the smoke alarm will be met with the challenge to get one of these aids fitted.
    This is a moot argument. You’re assessed for the aids or appliances you have or could reasonably be expected to have. You don’t get punished for not having them. You would score points either way as is made clear in Regulation 4(2) which provides -

    “[The claimant's] ability to carry out an activity is to be assessed - (a) on the basis of [the claimant's] ability whilst wearing or using any aid or appliance which [the claimant] normally wears or uses; or (b) as if [the claimant] were wearing or using any aid or appliance which [the claimant] could reasonably be expected to wear or use.”.
    skullcap said:
    rbz said:
    @skullcap Judge assumed that I MUST HEAR smoke alarms when wash and bathe, because during Tribunal hearing I asked repeat just 1 question. And there no evidences. Whish is nonsense, because during tribunal I asked repeat most questions and some questions asked repeat 2 - 3 times. Also my medical records clear state moderate to severe hearing loss.
    That is as maybe but given the audio assessment you would have had to confirm severe deafness you should have been sent a letter telling you of the findings and to make another appointment at the hospital audio to have two hearing aids tuned and fitted for you. They did with me. Are you saying that even with both aids you could not hear or clearly understand what was being said at the tribunal? If not and despite you pointing out to them in not hearing properly the Tribunal would be wondering as to why then were you not wearing the aids. Simply asking them to repeat themselves would not be suitable evidence to show severe deafness.
    This is also a moot point. A tribunal is inquisitorial. The lack of hearing aids on the day is neither here nor there. The level of functional hearing is all that matters. If they had an issue with no aids on the day they could have asked. If they used the lack of aids as a yardstick then you’re well on your way to an obvious error of law. 

    I also don’t see why it’s so controversial that someone with aids might still have an issue. I’ve certainly had people with aids which gave them 5% in one ear and zilch in the other. 
    skullcap said:
    rbz said:
    Tribunal ignored everything who can give points. I awarded only 2 points for communication, even I can't understand complex verbal information. During communication I always use lipreading, but Statement of reasons not contain any information about lipreading.
    Hearing aid not helpful for me, because noises distract me and I can't concentrate during conversation.
    The reason that lipreading was not considered is because it is not a system that is accepted by the DWP.
    Signing is so that should be used instead.
    If you cannot hear properly through the two prescribed hearing aids then you should go back to the provider and have them tuned accordingly.
    With my two I have three different settings which I adjust to the circumstances at the time. They were provided by the Audio Dept at the hospital.
    This is inaccurate. Plenty of case law around lip reading going back a good while too. See https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/10755/ for starters. 

    ilovecats said:
    The risk of harm is generally assessed and the risk of a fire while a person is in the shower is highly unlikely so that may contribute to the decision 
    This is a fundamental misstatement of the law as it has stood for some time now. The assessment of risk under PIP has been returned to the DLA position whereby you weigh risk against remoteness. The classic statement of this is the proposition that a properly supervised child will never run into the road but they’ve only to do it once and the likely outcome would be very serious indeed. 

    The HCP guidance indeed states that 

    “ Risk and Safety
    2.1.15 When considering whether an activity can be undertaken safely, it is necessary to consider the likelihood of harm occurring and the severity of the harm that might occur. It is a common sense approach that when the severity of harm is high a lower risk is acceptable. When the harm is minor it may be acceptable for the likelihood of that harm occurring to be higher.”

    Tribunals often need reminding on the point but the general principle remains that whilst the risk of a fire may be low the severity of the consequences should be obvious. Thus occurs one of the most common errors of HCPs, decision makers and tribunals alike. 

    ilovecats said:
    I would say being hit by a car due to poor hearing carries a much higher risk than being attacked or set on fire in the shower, that’s why it’s considered as part of Activity 11.

    I have excellent hearing and wouldn’t hear someone coming in the front door mid shower doesn’t mean I should apply for PIP
    And the above point is exactly why this assertion is legally incorrect. The law, case law and guidance are very clear that when assessing risk you’re not assessing whether or not something is more or less likely than something else. You’re assessing the consequences if it were to do so. What matters is not which of a fire or a car injury would be the more likely. The assessment starts by looking at whether the risk is so remote as to be non-existent and (as in the case of fires and the deaf) if not then how serious would the consequences be. That should be obvious. This would be 4c every time. 

    Same applies with prepping food. A smoke alarm with a light would never suffice. A hearing impaired person could turn away from a pan to deal with a microwave or a running tap and the pan could boil over and scald them because they didn’t hear it even if they could hear a smoke alarm. 1e would be in play there as would be 9b or 9c. 

    I do apologise for pulling up several of you but I hope you’ll appreciate I’ve evidenced my assertions and that people with sensory loss are proportionally the largest underclaimers; the least likely to appeal and the most likely to have others wrongly interpret the means by which they can mitigate their condition. It’s really important to ensure none of that is compounded by confident sounding advice which is ill-founded. 
  • skullcapskullcap Posts: 172 Member
    edited February 2020
    Thanks and I will take it on the chin.
    I would also mention in passing that I too have to wear both hearing aids and even with wearing them they pick up far too much background noise.
    In my claim I never considered even thinking about the descriptors other than 7b which gave me 2 points.
    Based on what you are saying there would have been up to another 10 points that should have been given. Obviously I did not read that they would/could apply. I just claimed that I needed aids. This clearly highlights that not everyone is qualified in completing the PIP2 form. Maybe the DWP should well remember this and offer these points that are missed.
  • cristobalcristobal Member Posts: 966 Disability Gamechanger
    edited February 2020
    @mikehughescq.

    I’m reluctant to disagree as your posts are always incredibly useful and informative but there’s a misunderstanding here which does need to be corrected. You say,

     

    “The law, case law and guidance are very clear that when assessing risk you’re not assessing whether or not something is more or less likely than something else. You’re assessing the consequences if it were to do so.”

    This is wrong and you are confusing two different things which are both important.

    You should be assessing both ‘risk’ - how likely something is to happen, and ‘hazard’ - how likely something is to cause harm to someone. You are only considering the ‘hazard’ (and @ilovecats was only considering ‘risk’)

    In this case 'risk' of a house catching fire is the same whether impaired or unimpaired. A person who cannot hear a smoke alarm is more likely to be at an increased risk from the 'hazard' (because they may have less time to evacuate)

    Before taking a bath you should check round to see if you can reduce hazard and risk. Have you left a pan on the stove? If you have an open fire use a fireguard. Have you been ironing,or using the tumble drier? If so check that they are switched off. There are many more.

    You have reduced the ‘risk’ i.e. how likely there is to be a fire.

    However you can still reduce the ‘hazard.’ (Here there are some extra things that an impaired person might routinely consider) Close all of the doors. You may consider leaving the bathroom door open and, if possible, facing towards the door whilst in the bath. If the house does catch fire in the time you’re in the bath you may see smoke and be able to evacuate. Or close the door and await rescue. Check that you are able to open the window easily and it’s not locked! Take a phone with you when using the bathroom.

    My opinion, and you may disagree, is that having taken steps to reduce risk/ hazard you are perfectly safe to take a bath. In fact you may even be safer than someone who isn’t impaired and didn’t take steps to manage hazard.

    Houses don’t suffer spontaneous combustion (!) and even if they did the chance of it happening whilst you choose to take a bath are several millions to one. To use your phrase “the ‘risk’  is so remote as to be non-existent” 

    Your other example about a pan boiling over also isn't a good one for the reasons above.

  • rbzrbz Member Posts: 96 Courageous
    edited February 2020
    @mikehughescq
    I already received Statement of reasons and Records of proceedings
    Under most descriptions Judge pointed that medical records from GP not indicate any problems during my daily living.
    Judge was advised that during 10 minutes appointment I and doctor talking about leg pain and there no time to discuss about difficulties during daily living (like difficulties with dress/undress lowerbody, difficulties when preparing food and etc).
    Judge also pointed that CAPITA PIP Assessment report not contains information about these difficulties. Judge was advised that PIP Assessment report contains errors and there missing some information. At this moment Independent Case Examiner investigate DWP/CAPITA maladministration.

    If talk about hearing loss and activity 'Wash and bathe' judge decided that i MUST hear smoke detectors, because during Tribunal Hearing I ask repeat only ONE question.
    Really during hearing I ask repeat almost every question 2 - 4 times.

    Record of proceedings 
    not reflect all situation, because some questions/answers not show.
    For example there not printed when Judge asked how he should talk, slowly or loud (because of my hearing loss), I ask speak slowly, because then I can use lipread. Also there missing some other questions/answers.
  • rbzrbz Member Posts: 96 Courageous
    Statement of reasons shows:
    "Small moderate to severe hearing loss" - which is nonsense and judge have no clue about hearing loss levels.
    Also stated "Have hearing aids for both ears."
    I always used only one hearing aid. Never had aids for both ears.
    Judge not checked my medical records where everything printed. He just take facts from incorrect Capita PIP assessment records.
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,926 Disability Gamechanger
    cristobal said:
    @mikehughescq.

    I’m reluctant to disagree as your posts are always incredibly useful and informative but there’s a misunderstanding here which does need to be corrected. You say,

    “The law, case law and guidance are very clear that when assessing risk you’re not assessing whether or not something is more or less likely than something else. You’re assessing the consequences if it were to do so.”

    This is wrong and you are confusing two different things which are both important.

    You should be assessing both ‘risk’ - how likely something is to happen, and ‘hazard’ - how likely something is to cause harm to someone. You are only considering the ‘hazard’ (and @ilovecats was only considering ‘risk’)

    In this case 'risk' of a house catching fire is the same whether impaired or unimpaired. A person who cannot hear a smoke alarm is more likely to be at an increased risk from the 'hazard' (because they may have less time to evacuate)

    Before taking a bath you should check round to see if you can reduce hazard and risk. Have you left a pan on the stove? If you have an open fire use a fireguard. Have you been ironing,or using the tumble drier? If so check that they are switched off. There are many more.

    You have reduced the ‘risk’ i.e. how likely there is to be a fire.

    However you can still reduce the ‘hazard.’ (Here there are some extra things that an impaired person might routinely consider) Close all of the doors. You may consider leaving the bathroom door open and, if possible, facing towards the door whilst in the bath. If the house does catch fire in the time you’re in the bath you may see smoke and be able to evacuate. Or close the door and await rescue. Check that you are able to open the window easily and it’s not locked! Take a phone with you when using the bathroom.

    My opinion, and you may disagree, is that having taken steps to reduce risk/ hazard you are perfectly safe to take a bath. In fact you may even be safer than someone who isn’t impaired and didn’t take steps to manage hazard.

    Houses don’t suffer spontaneous combustion (!) and even if they did the chance of it happening whilst you choose to take a bath are several millions to one. To use your phrase “the ‘risk’  is so remote as to be non-existent” 

    Your other example about a pan boiling over also isn't a good one for the reasons above.

    @cristobal I fear you may have slightly misread my post. It’s brave of you to say my statement of the law is wrong so to clarify here is the key statement of the law as it is right now. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b7ff34ae5274a4a77e83eaf/CPIP_3528_2017-00.pdf

    There are some key points to note from this decision:

    1 - it does exactly as I said and effectively returns us to the DLA definition of risk i.e. a balancing of risk v remoteness. 

    2 - it explicitly states that there are limits to the extent a claimant should be expected to mitigate any perceived risk. In other words there are no fixed steps you would expect  every deaf person to take because that’s not what’s being assessed.

    3 - there is no mention of “hazard”. This is a concept you’ve introduced and it forms no part of this sort of decision.

    4 - the risk when bathing is not focused on something obtuse like a fire but on any unforeseen emergency. Take your aids out and it could be fire but also flood, an intruder and much more.

    The thing I think you may have misconstrued is that I was indeed highlighting posters who were indeed focusing just on risk BUT also had the wrong approach to risk. However, I was then going on to highlight that you don’t look at risk in isolation and assess it on its likelihood of occurring. You have to address the consequences. A simplistic construction of “well fire is unlikely” is exactly why HCPs and DMs get this consistently wrong and the NDCS had such a high win rate at tribunals on explicitly this point. 

    A frequent illustration of this is the small child case I cited, which comes from some very old case law but has been used in the CPAG Welfare Benefits Handbook (the definitive text of welfare rights advice) for as long as it’s existed. My first copy was provided in 1986. This is not some made up thing. This is how the law assesses the issue and has done so for nearly 40 years. If I had my book to hand I’d give you the exact date but my sofa is too comfy after doing nearly 2 hours walking today.

    Bearing in mind that in this law in this context your concept of “hazard” does not exist, a number of your assertions are really assumptions which don’t quite stand up. It’s a straw man here. 

    So, you say that the risk of fire is no greater whether impaired or not. However you’re talking about a fire starting. That’s not how the law has ever approached this. Risk here is about consequences. However, is your assertion correct? 


    Here’s some more explicitly about the increased risk of injury from deafness. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-hearing-loss-injury-idUSKBN1HV2V3

    It’s not hard to link these stats to poverty, low incomes, old age and disability. Lack of smoke alarms, lack of mobility causing fatalities and so on. In fact your assertion is not true at all. The risk of a “fire starting” is considerably higher amongst people with an impairment.

    I suspect that intuitively most people would see this to be correct and my own personal experience of sensory loss would bear this out. No HCP gives a sight impaired person points for needing help on familiar routes. 

    Tell that to me knees and hands after I fall on the loose paving slab en route to my bus stop. I know it was there yesterday. I can be aware of the risk but whether or bot anything happens is out of my control as sight loss is so environmental. What you see in one place at one time may not be what you see at the same place at the same time the next day. 

    Tell that to my face after I’ve been smacked by a low hanging set of thick tree branches someone has not cut back. Again, I might know they’re there but sometimes I’ll see them and be able to avoid. Other times not.

    Anyway...

    Moving on to what our social security law actually says...

    The risk being assessed is NOT the risk of fire starting. It’s the risk of serious consequences. In the case of a fire, which as the decision above states, is a poor example of the many risks a deaf person faces when bathing, the risk is undoubtedly remote. Nobody disputes that. 

    Mitigating remote risks in the many ways you describe is not a legal requirement though. This is because the law is not assessing how stupid you were before a specific fire starts and the extent to which your risk was greater because you did something silly. It is instead looking at the consequences of that general risk of “a fire”. The risk is not a fire starting. The risk is just “a fire”. The consequences are potentially fatal. 

    Back to the child. Not many children run into the road. It’s not a routine occurrence Parents and guardians take loads of mitigating steps. Nevertheless, it only has to happen the once and the consequences can be deadly. The law will not asses whether the parents did all they ought to have done. The law simply concludes that weighting remoteness against risk this would nevertheless be a risk for which supervision would be the thing which guarded against it. 

    Back to fire and hearing. The law cares not whether your door was open; whether the dryer was on or the chips burning. It has already agreed that the risk of a fire is remote. However, what the law is concerned with is the consequences of the risk. The likelihood of a poor outcome of a fire for some people with some impairments will always be higher than for those with none. The stats indisputably show that (as regrettably do the fatalities stats) this is in fact the case. The risk is fire. It’s remote but slightly less remote in these circumstances. Weighting remoteness against risk once again the conclusion is that supervision would be the thing that guarded against it. That’s why points get scored.

    Another way of putting it is that the steps a deaf person would have to go to in order to mitigate against the risk of fire in any meaningful way when the risk is low but the potential consequences so high are so many that supervision from another person is the better bet. It simply sorts it.

    To give you another example, let’s look at PIP and falls. A person who falls once a week but does so in relatively predictable circumstances out of doors on uneven ground; can get up by themselves and has never been hospitalised is clearly at “risk” of falling. However, weighting remoteness against risk suggests that whilst the risk is not remote the consequences are evidentially minor. No need for supervision.

    Turn that around and look at someone who falls once a quarter but in wholly unpredictable circumstances; could t get up by themselves on one occasion and ended up in A&E. The risk is remote but the consequences potentially deadly. Supervision is needed. 

    Finally, worth noting that this case law was established by cases taken by the NDCS. They have played a front running role in getting a more meaningful definition of risk through cases like the above and no organisation or individual is in a position to say better what the risks truly are.

    Forgive the length but you made an argument that might appeal to many on the face of it so I wanted to give it the analysis it deserved. May I also say how much I appreciate the civility. It’s a pleasure to discuss these things with you. 

  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,926 Disability Gamechanger
    @cristobal I have responded but I presume it’s stuck in moderation somewhere.
  • cristobalcristobal Member Posts: 966 Disability Gamechanger
    @mikehughescq

    I will bow to you superior knowledge in this area, and read the case law with interest.

    I think there might be some confusion over the various terms - the health and safety term is 'hazard' but you choose to call it 'consequences', as in "consequences potentially deadly". It's the same thing (I think!) - without a hazard or 'consequences' any activity is perfectly safe. That's why, in relation to the child running into the road, it is a lot safer where I live. Quiet country lane = low hazard. The 'risk' is exactly the same but overall it's safer.

    Case law is all very well but I also, in my opinion, useful to know what the DWP's take on these things is so here's a link to a document regarding the assessment of 'safety' which you and everyone may find interesting. I can't guarantee that's it's current unfortunately.

    http://https//assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/718722/adm15-18.pdf

    I still disagree about the fire risk - if I were in those circumstances I would quite happily take a bath without feeling unsafe at all.

    As always Mike it has been a pleasure...







  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,926 Disability Gamechanger
    The DWP guidance is, as ever, inaccurate in a number of places but essentially para 10 onwards is exactly what my post said. It’s definitely current.

    Their “take” has in recent years become overtly political and paid little heed to the law and case law but essentially, when done properly, it’s important to remember that they have no “take” legally. They only have the law and the case law. The guidance is just an idiots guide to that. Their guidance nowadays has to be viewed through a prism of outrageous politicisation but it also has to be viewed in the context that historically their decision making accuracy is somewhere between 10% and 66% at best depending on which area of the law you’re looking at.

    Two final observations:

    1 - the law doesn’t look at variations like where you live. Imagine a world in which you can’t make a decision unless you’ve assessed the risk of a specific road! It’s neither practical nor especially sensible.

    2 - it’s not about whether you feel safe. It’s about the consequences and just that. I felt safe when I got on my bus this afternoon. I didn’t even think about the risk beyond a bizarre conversation with family trying to persuade me to not go watch football because of corona virus. Unfortunately the back of it went up in flames about 10 minutes into my journey! One of my relatives and child got into a lift around the same time today and probably didn’t give a second thought to it. They were trapped for around 45 minutes! 
Sign in or join us to comment.