TL v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2024] UKUT 282 (AAC)
MB v SSWP
19 August 2024
[2024] UKUT 271 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
Someone applied for PIP and was denied. A higher court found the first court made mistakes: they didn't look at all the medical evidence, didn't explain their decision properly, and didn't give the person a chance to respond to things the judge noticed during the hearing. The case will be heard again by a different judge.
Key Facts
- •Claimant applied for PIP on 06/01/2023.
- •Initial PIP application denied.
- •FTT awarded 0 points for daily living and mobility.
- •Appeal to the Upper Tribunal based on inadequate reasons and failure to consider Regulation 4(2A).
- •Upper Tribunal found errors of law in the FTT's decision.
Legal Principles
FTT must consider all evidence and provide adequate reasons for its decision.
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, section 12(2)
Where conflicting evidence exists, the FTT must state which evidence it prefers and why.
Case law (implied)
FTT must give the claimant an opportunity to address inferences drawn from observations made at the hearing.
Principles of natural justice; K.H. (by C.H.) -v- SSWP (DLA) [2022] UKUT 303 (AAC); CC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [SSWP] (ESA) [2019] UKUT 14 (AAC)
Regulation 4(2A) of the Social Security (PIP) Regulations 2013 regarding safety should be adequately considered.
Social Security (PIP) Regulations 2013, Regulation 4(2A)
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT's decision.
The FTT made errors of law by failing to consider all evidence, adequately resolve conflicting evidence, provide sufficient reasons, and allow the claimant to address observations made at the hearing.
The appeal was remitted to the FTT for re-hearing.
Further findings of fact are required.