MB v SSWP
[2024] UKUT 271 (AAC)
SR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
10 July 2024
[2024] UKUT 198 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
Someone applied for PIP too soon after their injury. The first judge wrongly rejected the claim because of the timing, ignoring a rule that allows for earlier awards. A higher court sent the case back to a new judge to decide correctly, using only information from the time of the original decision.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision refusing Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
- •Appellant's PIP claim made less than 3 months after a work accident.
- •FTT refused the appeal, holding the claimant did not meet the 3-month qualifying period for PIP.
- •Appellant argued that the FTT failed to consider Regulation 33(1) of the Universal Credit etc (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013, which allows for advance claims.
- •Secretary of State's representative supported the appeal.
Legal Principles
Regulation 33(1) of the Universal Credit etc (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013 allows for advance claims to PIP, even if the claimant does not meet the qualifying period at the time of the claim.
Universal Credit etc (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/380), Regulation 33(1)
A tribunal must only consider circumstances obtaining at the time of the decision appealed against.
Section 12(8)(b) of the Social Security Act 1998
The Upper Tribunal has the power to set aside a First-tier Tribunal decision made in error of law and remit the case for reconsideration.
Section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider Regulation 33(1) of the Universal Credit etc (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013, which allows for advance claims to PIP. The FTT's decision was set aside, and the case was remitted for rehearing before a new tribunal.