Reply To: Use of ‘Supervision’ as the reason for CSS

#286824
Leonard Payne
Participant

Thanks Peter.

I guess you’re talking about R(A) 2/75 where the judgement says that supervision can be performed “to avoid substantial danger which may or may not in fact arise; so supervision may be precautionary and anticipatory, yet never resulting intervention, or maybe ancillary to an part of active assistance given on specific occasions to the claimant”. The judgement here is that it defines what is “continual supervision”

and

R(A) 1/88 where the concept of “present on guard” is given in the judgement

These are both “Attendance Allowance Board” and appear to be related to claims for AA rather than DLA.

I came across these as a result of my own personal current claim for AA. These original decisions were decided as an appeal of whether the claimant satisfied the night supervision condition in section 2(1)(b)(ii) of the National Insurance Act 1972

I guess my thoughts are whether a 24 hour supervisor would be enough the satisfy the requirements of CSS as it is counted as supervision. I’d love to argue a case 🙂