1.	This appeal, brought with my leave, fails.  The decision of the tribunal on  25 5 04 was not erroneous in law, as explained below.  

2.	The claimant, who was born on 16 10 80 and who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, had an award of lower rate mobility component and lowest rate care component from 30 5 03 to 29 11 04.  On appeal, this was increased by the tribunal to middle rate care component because of night-time needs, but no award was made for daytime needs.

3.	The grounds of appeal were that the claimant’s mother gives him frequent attention throughout the day by prompting him to get up, get dressed, wash and take medication, and monitors his food intake, which she cooks.  Further, the claimant requires continual supervision throughout the day because of the risk of overdosing, even though he is in fact left alone for two hours in the morning and two hours in the early evening.  I gave leave to appeal, though rejecting the supervision arguments because the claimant’s mother now dispenses his medication.  I also cast doubt on the lower rate mobility award.

4.	The Secretary of State’s officer did not support the appeal, though apparently criticising the tribunal for not penalising the claimant for refusing depot injections.  I reject this criticism: I might not myself agree with the tribunal’s approach to the injections, but it was an approach within its competence, and was clearly properly considered and explained.  

5.	The representative reiterated the claimant’s need for attention in the form of prompting.  He also dealt with lower rate mobility and the depot injections.  I have just mentioned the latter, and I do not intend to disturb the former award.

6.	The evidence before the tribunal was that the claimant got out of bed unprompted, but then waited until his mother returned from work before doing anything else, including eating.  I am willing to accept that the claimant does require prompting, but not that this equates to his mother carrying out for him all the specified functions.  Prompting may be momentary.  The evidence was that bathing/showering required more persuasion, but that shaving was done only every four days.  So long as the claimant sometimes washes and shaves, it hardly matters that he does not do so every day.  Nor would it particularly matter if he did not dress every day.  He is not, on the evidence, going out much.  I decline, therefore, to accept that all the functions that would be performed by a person going out and about to work or study reasonably require a person who is doing neither of these to be prompted to do every one of them every single day.  Even if I did, there would be no question of the prompting being frequent throughout the day, it would be clustered at the beginning and end of the day.   	
7.	It may be that the claimant lacks the concentration to cook a main meal for himself, and might misuse a knife if told to do so by his voices, but though this would earn an award of lowest rate care component, I do not see that I can do anything about it.  The law (Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, s70) does not appear to allow an award of lowest rate for daytime to be added to middle rate for night-time, only of highest rate if the middle rate for both day and night is warranted.    
	
8.	I already in giving leave to appeal made clear my view that the daytime supervision condition is not fulfilled since the claimant’s mother keeps and dispenses his medication, so that he cannot overdose on it.	

9.	The tribunal was entitled to reach the decision it did, and it adequately explained why it had done so.

							(signed on original)		Christine Fellner
												Commissioner

												11 November 2004