Incontinence
Urinary incontinence occurs when the normal process of storing and passing urine is disrupted and can take the form of stress incontinence or urge incontinence. Bowel incontinence is usually caused by a physical problem with the parts of the body that control the bowel. In some cases, incontinence may result from a health condition such as dementia or a severe learning disability that causes the person to lose control.
Note: Although disablement must be caused by a physical or mental health condition, it is the needs and difficulties that result which will determine entitlement rather than the condition itself. As a result, whilst the case law below may be of assistance, it will be important to also look at the case law relating to the activities and issues that affect you too.
Case law
Commentary: Whilst we don't yet have any commentary in relation to the case law items below, we'd love to hear from you if you'd like to contribute. Send us a suggestion and we’d be happy to incorporate it here. | Add commentary or suggest an edit.
-
Tribunal erred in failing to make sufficient findings of fact about the steps needed and the time taken by the appellant to manage his double incontinence in view of the PIP ‘acceptable standard’ and ‘reasonable time’ criteria
- [2024] UKUT 185 (AAC)
- UA-2023-001268-PIP
- MS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Use of ACE procedure to evacuate the bowels amounts to managing incontinence / Use of word ‘including’ means procedure is not precluded under descriptor 5e
- [2024] NICom 52
- CO18/24-25 (PIP)
- EK v Department for Communities (PIP)
-
Tribunal failed to make sufficient findings of fact in relation to its conclusion that claimant could change stoma bag while sitting down
- [2024] NICom 46
- C14/24-24 (PIP)
- SH v Department for Communities
-
A reasonable need to use incontinence pads at night, whether used as a precautionary measure or not used at all, may be enough to satisfy descriptor 5b
- [2018] UKUT 78 (AAC)
- CPIP/3104/2017
- KO v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
- Precautionary use of incontinence pads can help satisfy the 50 per cent test in regulation 7
- [2017] UKUT 258 (AAC)
- CPIP/387/2017
- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v NH (PIP)
- Assistance to self-catheterise by itself does not amount to therapy for the purposes of activity 3
- [2017] UKUT 104 (AAC)
- Reported as [2017] AACR 31
- CPIP/3404/2016
- AS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
- Incontinence pads are an ‘aid or appliance’ for managing incontinence in activity 5
- [2016] UKUT 456 (AAC)
- CPIP/2908/2015
- BS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
- Colostomy bag is an ‘aid or appliance’ for managing incontinence in activity 5
- [2016] UKUT 296 (AAC)
- UK/5352/2014
- JM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
- Interpretation of descriptor 5 (toilet needs) and overlap with descriptor 3 (managing therapy)
- [2015] UKUT 554 (AAC)
- Reported as [2016] AACR 20
- CPIP/1679/2015
- MF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
-
Help with dressing and undressing does not count in assessing need for help with toileting or incontinence / Adequacy of reasons for not accepting claimant’s evidence
- [2015] UKUT 498 (AAC)
- CPIP/1739/2015
- GP v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions