QWH v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2024] UKUT 339 (AAC)
MS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
25 June 2024
[2024] UKUT 185 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A man with MS and severe incontinence was wrongly denied PIP benefits. The court corrected this error, awarding him the benefits and ordering the government to reconsider a later application in light of the new decision.
Key Facts
- •Appellant (M.S.), 64, suffers from Multiple Sclerosis (MS) causing bladder and bowel incontinence.
- •Initial PIP claim refused by DWP, upheld by First-tier Tribunal (FTT).
- •FTT awarded only 4 points (2 for descriptor 5b and 2 for 9b), insufficient for an award.
- •Appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), arguing insufficient factual findings and inadequate reasons by FTT regarding time taken to manage incontinence.
- •Secretary of State supported the appeal, acknowledging FTT's errors in fact-finding and reasoning.
- •Appellant's subsequent PIP claim (24/07/2023) was also unsuccessful.
Legal Principles
Regulation 4(2A) criteria of "acceptable standard" and "reasonable time" in assessing PIP claims.
PIP Regulations
Tribunals must make sufficient findings of fact and give adequate reasons for their decisions.
Implied by the case outcome and UT's reasoning.
Section 12(2)(a) and (b)(ii) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 allows the UT to set aside a lower tribunal's decision and remake it if an error of law is found.
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Regulation 11(2) of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013 allows the Secretary of State to revise a decision on a subsequent claim if the earlier decision was made incorrectly.
Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; FTT decision set aside.
The FTT erred in law by failing to adequately address the time taken by the Appellant to manage his incontinence, and providing insufficient reasons for its decision.
Appellant awarded standard rate of PIP daily living component (indefinite period from 8 February 2022).
The UT found the Appellant met the criteria for 8 points under descriptor 5f and 2 points under descriptor 9b, thus satisfying the criteria for an award.
Secretary of State will revise the decision on the Appellant's subsequent PIP claim.
Regulation 11(2) of the 2013 Regulations allows for this in light of the UT's decision.