MS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2024] UKUT 185 (AAC)
JT v SSWP
16 July 2024
[2024] UKUT 211 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
Someone applied for disability benefits (PIP). The first court said no. The higher court said the first court didn't properly consider the risk of the person getting hurt, so they sent the case back to be decided again.
Key Facts
- •Appellant claimed PIP on 15/09/2022.
- •Initial decision denied PIP (4 points daily living, 0 points mobility).
- •Mandatory reconsideration upheld the denial.
- •First-tier Tribunal (FTT) confirmed denial (6 points daily living, 4 points mobility).
- •Upper Tribunal (UT) appeal concerned insufficient findings on Activities 9 and 5.
- •Appellant experiences muscle spasms and leg weakness.
- •FTT found appellant needed assistance for washing and bathing due to uncontrolled spasms but not for managing toilet needs, despite occasional leg giving way.
Legal Principles
Regulation 4(2A)(a) 'safely' requires consideration of the real possibility of harm, not just the likelihood of the harm occurring more often than not.
RJ, GMcL and CS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2017] UKUT 105 (AAC)
Regulation 7 (50% rule) should not be conflated with the assessment under Regulation 4(2A).
RJ, GMcL and CS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2017] UKUT 105 (AAC)
Tribunals must make sufficient findings of fact to support their conclusions.
This case
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision.
The FTT erred in law by failing to adequately consider Regulation 4(2A)(a) 'safely' in relation to Activity 5 and by making insufficient findings of fact. The FTT's reasoning was inconsistent and conflated Regulations 4 and 7.
The appeal was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing.
Further findings of fact are required to properly assess the appellant's entitlement to PIP.