Key Facts
- •Appellant claimed PIP on 5 March 2021.
- •Claim refused on 31 August 2021.
- •FTT dismissed appeal, placing more weight on claim form and HCP assessment than later submissions.
- •FTT bundle contained 930 pages, but the FTT stated it considered only 422 pages.
- •Multiple adjournments due to missing evidence.
- •Appellant argued the FTT didn't consider all relevant medical evidence (Additions Z8-Z11), particularly regarding driving restrictions.
- •Respondent conceded the FTT may not have considered all evidence.
Legal Principles
Tribunals must consider all relevant evidence.
Section 12(8)(b) of the Social Security Act 1998
Findings of credibility are primarily for the FTT, but can be overturned if there's an error of law.
IP v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (IB) [2010] UKUT 97 (AAC)
Tribunals should not consider circumstances not present at the time of the original decision.
Section 12(8)(b) of the Social Security Act 1998
The Upper Tribunal can set aside a FTT decision and remit it for reconsideration if there's an error of law.
Section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
FTT erred in law by potentially not considering all relevant evidence, specifically medical evidence regarding the appellant's driving restrictions, which impacted the assessment of credibility.
FTT decision set aside.
Error of law.
Case remitted for rehearing before a new FTT.
To ensure a fresh consideration of all the evidence.