Read the full decision in.
Two linked appeals, YA had epilepsy, SA had chronic pain but no mental health disorder. Issues were whether, or the extent to which WRA required between the decision and the FTT hearing should be taken into account, and the position of 3rd party assistance in relation to WRA. (i) that work related activity requirements made between the decision under appeal and the FTT hearing should be considered, as the appellant’s response to what was demanded may shed light on the position at the relevant date, but they cannot be the whole story; without evidence on the point the FTT must avoid the assumption that if the appellant has been asked to prepare a CV, or conduct a telephone interview from home they will not be required to do anything more onerous. (ii) that within the personalised regulation 35 assessment (as opposed to under the descriptors) there may be some circumstances where a degree of help for a limited period might be reasonable; what should not be assumed is regular and open ended input from another person. (iii) the section 26 (6) duty on the SOS under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments really adds nothing to the duty under regulation 3 of the WRA that the WRA requirement is reasonable, and the regulation 35 risk assessment being