Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2013 UKUT 159 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	CSDLA 252 2012
Appellant:	KM
Respondent:	Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Judge/Commissioner:	Three-Judge Panel / Tribunal of Commissioners
Date Of Decision:	08/02/2013
Date Added:	05/04/2013
Main Category:	DLA, AA: personal care
Main Subcategory:	attention: children under 16
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Reported as [2014] AACR 2. Disability living allowance – child or young person with dyslexia – whether assistance of an educational kind “attention” for DLA purposes – proper approach to decision-making The appellant acted as the appointee for her son who suffered from dyslexia. The First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) upheld the Department for Work and Pension’s (DWP) decision that he was not entitled to disability living allowance (DLA). The claimant’s mother appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT) against that decision. In its submission the DWP accepted that the F-tT had failed to make sufficient findings of fact and referred to a previous decision of the UT namely CDLA/1983/2006. A three-judge panel was convened to consider the conflict between two decisions of the UT, CSDLA/427/2006 and CDLA/1983/2006, as to whether assistance which could be labelled as part of a child’s education could count as “attention” for the purposes of DLA entitlement. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. the general approach adopted in CDLA/1983/2006 was endorsed, including the central importance for the decision-maker when determining claims to make full and clear findings of fact and to apply them to the statutory tests. The approach to education in paragraph 8 of CSDLA/427/2006 was incorrect and not to be followed. The UT refrained from laying down prescriptive terms of those circumstances in which a child or young person with dyslexia could be entitled to DLA because the determination of such claims was individual and fact-specific (paragraphs 37 to 41); 2. a person with dyslexia has a functional or mental disability or impairment, in the sense of a restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human. The essential question was a consequence of the dyslexia (and any other relevant syndrome) and thus the relevant physical or mental disability) (paragraph 44); 3. any assistance of an educational kind could be treated as “attention” provided it was given as a consequence of the relevant functional disability and had a sufficiently intimate and personal quality to qualify as “attention” in the light of established authority. In addition the test of section 72(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 had to be satisfied in respect of the aggregate of “attention”. This approach focused on all of the assistance relied on and thus given to a child at home and at school (paragraphs 48 to 51). The three-judge panel set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and remitted the appeal to a differently constituted tribunal to be decided in accordance with its Directions.
Decision(s) to Download:	[2014] AACR 2bv.doc