MB v SSWP
[2024] UKUT 271 (AAC)
JM v SSWP
29 August 2024
[2024] UKUT 283 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A person with autism appealed a decision about their disability benefits. A higher court agreed the first decision was unfair because it didn't explain things clearly enough and didn't look at all the evidence properly. The case will be decided again.
Key Facts
- •Appellant claimed PIP via telephone on 20/06/2022.
- •FTT allowed the appeal on 19/12/2023, awarding PIP.
- •Appellant appealed FTT decision to Upper Tribunal.
- •Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal.
- •Appellant has ASD and significant social anxiety.
- •Appeal focused on activities: Preparing food, Washing and bathing, Dressing, Reading, Making budgeting decisions, and Planning and following journeys.
- •Appellant argued inadequate reasons and failure to consider Regulation 4(2A) of the Social Security (PIP) Regulations 2013.
Legal Principles
Tribunals must provide sufficient reasons for their decisions and cannot simply reject evidence without explanation.
Upper Tribunal decision
When extrapolating from one activity to another, the activities must be genuinely comparable in terms of movement, cognitive demands, and regularity.
Commissioner Stockman in C25/18-19(PIP), paragraph 20
Tribunals have an inquisitorial duty to make sufficient findings of fact, particularly regarding whether an aid is reasonably required for an activity.
Upper Tribunal decision
In considering 'making budgeting decisions', the appellant must demonstrate not only the ability to perform calculations but also an understanding of the outcome and implications.
Upper Tribunal Judge Ward in SE v SSWP (PIP) [2021] UKUT 1 (AAC)
The word "or" should be interpreted disjunctively where appropriate, as seen in SP v SSWP [2016] UKUT 190 (AAC).
Judge Rowley in SP v SSWP [2016] UKUT 190 (AAC)
Tribunals cannot consider circumstances not applying at the date of decision (section 12(8) of the Social Security Act 1998), unless the evidence relates to the circumstances at the date of decision.
Section 12(8) of the Social Security Act 1998
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT's decision.
The FTT erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons, fully consider Regulation 4(2A), consider the totality of the evidence, and make sufficient findings of fact.
The appeal was remitted to the FTT for rehearing.
Further findings of fact are required.