DC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Under Activity 3 of Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, a need for help to monitor a health condition attracts descriptor b only. The higher-scoring descriptors concern help to manage therapy and cannot be used merely because monitoring or general support is extensive.

Therapy has limits. Support which is beneficial, including observation for deterioration and assistance with ordinary living that reduces stress, is not without more therapy. The requirement for supervision means the continuous presence of another person for safety; staff availability and periodic checks do not necessarily satisfy it.

The claimant, who had paranoid schizophrenia, lived in a staffed care home. He said that his mental state required continuous assessment and that failure to take medication could lead to paranoia and hallucinations.

The Secretary of State awarded one point under Activity 3b. The First-tier Tribunal, reference SC303/15/00077, upheld that award and dismissed the appeal because the claimant did not reach the threshold for the daily living component. It found that staff checked him twice daily, that he managed his medication, and that he did not receive supervised therapy for more than three and a half hours weekly.

Permission was granted on the question of the correct Activity 3 descriptor where a person requires continual supervision to monitor health but normally needs no significant help with medication or therapy.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal made no error of law in awarding one point under Activity 3b.

2. The wording of Schedule 1 separates monitoring a health condition from managing medication or therapy. Monitoring is expressly addressed in descriptor b and cannot be read into descriptors c to f. A claimant can obtain the higher scores only by establishing a need for supervision, prompting or assistance to manage therapy for the specified weekly period.

3. The support supplied at the care home was important and beneficial, but it was not therapy. Keeping the claimant under observation for signs of deterioration, administering medication, and providing general assistance to reduce stress did not, on the evidence, amount to therapy. The Tribunal was not required to give an exhaustive definition of therapy; it was enough that a beneficial effect alone did not satisfy the concept.

4. In any event, assistance with medication could not meet the three-and-a-half-hour threshold even if medication were treated as therapy. The time conditions in descriptors c to f apply only to managing therapy.

5. The former disability living allowance criterion of continual supervision did not alter that conclusion. Under personal independence payment, supervision requires continuous presence for safety. In the circumstances, staff availability, regular checks and general support did not amount to presence. The Judge left open the degree of proximity required in other cases.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Held that the First-tier Tribunal decision involved no error of law and dismissed the appeal.
• First-tier Tribunal: In decision reference SC303/15/00077, upheld one point under Activity 3b, awarded two further points under Activity 10b, and dismissed the appeal because the daily-living threshold was not met.