LB v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2024] UKUT 338 (AAC)
AM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
13 September 2024
[2024] UKUT 289 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A woman appealed a decision that she didn't qualify for help with getting around because of her health problems. The judge decided the first hearing didn't correctly understand the rules, so the case has to be heard again by different judges to get the right decision.
Key Facts
- •The claimant suffers from various physical and mental health conditions, including seizures.
- •The claimant appealed a decision denying her the mobility component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FtT) dismissed the appeal.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) found the FtT made material errors of law in its assessment of the claimant's ability to perform mobility activities safely.
- •The UT set aside the FtT's decision and remitted the case for rehearing before a differently constituted panel.
Legal Principles
The assessment of whether a claimant can perform an activity "safely" for PIP purposes requires consideration of both the likelihood and severity of potential harm, not just whether harm is "more likely than not." A "real possibility" of harm that cannot be ignored, considering the nature and gravity of the potential harm, is sufficient.
RJ, GMcL and CS v SSWP [2017] AACR 32
Regulation 4(2A)(a) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 requires that a claimant can carry out an activity "safely" to satisfy a descriptor for PIP entitlement.
Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013
The Upper Tribunal can set aside a First-tier Tribunal decision and remit the case for rehearing if the FtT makes a material error of law.
Section 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Outcomes
The First-tier Tribunal's decision was set aside.
The First-tier Tribunal made material errors of law in its application of RJ v SSWP [2017] AACR 32 by misinterpreting the 'safely' requirement in the context of the claimant's seizures, failing to adequately consider conflicting evidence, and not holistically assessing the evidence.
The case was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a rehearing before a differently constituted panel.
The Upper Tribunal determined that further fact-finding was necessary to properly assess the claimant's ability to perform the mobility activities safely in accordance with the legal principles established in RJ v SSWP [2017] AACR 32.