“The Tribunal have erred in law by failing to consider that the appellant requires her husband to organise her medication and that she uses a biscuit tin as an aid/appliance to store her medication. They have given no reasoning or explanation as to why this evidence has not been accepted. Furthermore their points in paragraph 17 under activity 5 are inconsistent with their findings under activity 6. The tribunal have stated under activity 5 that the appellant manages her own toilet needs without assistance from another person. Under activity 6 the Tribunal have stated that she required assistance by reason of her shoulder injury to dress her lower body. These findings are inconsistent and contradict each other. The appellant requires assistance with her toilet needs as she needs to adjust clothing on her lower body and by reason of her shoulder injury she is unable to do this on her own. The tribunal have failed to give an adequate explanation for failing to recognise her needs under activity 5 but thereafter accepting the same needs under activity 6.”
“9. In my submission I do not support the claimant’s contention that a biscuit tin is an “aid or appliance”
“12. With regard to the claimant’s contention that the First Tier Tribunal’s findings under activity 5 are inconsistent with their findings under activity 6 I do not support this contention. Activity 6 concerns dressing and undressing and in this case the claimant’s ability to dress her lower body. Activity 5 concerns the activities such as getting on and off an unadapted toilet, evacuating the bowel and/or bladder and cleaning oneself afterwards. It does not concern the ability to undress/dress before or after any of these activities. It is my submission that activities 5 and 6 are separate and distinct. Accordingly the First Tier Tribunal’s findings regarding activity 6 do not any impact on activity 5.”