MB v SSWP
[2024] UKUT 271 (AAC)
TL v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
11 September 2024
[2024] UKUT 282 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A person applied for PIP benefits and was rejected twice. The first rejection was appealed, but the judge made mistakes. A higher court said the judge did not follow the rules properly, so the case will be heard again by a different judge.
Key Facts
- •TL claimed PIP citing lower back pain, knee deformity, arthritis, glaucoma, achalasia, stress, and hearing loss.
- •DWP initially awarded 4 points for daily living, refusing the claim.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) awarded an additional 2 points but still denied the claim due to the 8-point threshold.
- •TL appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), arguing the FTT made errors of law.
- •The DWP's response to the appeal recommended additional points, potentially leading to a PIP award.
- •The UT found the FTT erred by not adequately considering the DWP's revised recommendation and relevant case law (DO v SSWP).
Legal Principles
The tribunal's inquisitorial duty to determine the reasons for TL's difficulty in putting on socks and shoes and whether this was within a reasonable time period.
Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, regulation 4(2A)
When the Secretary of State offers a revision of a PIP decision in a claimant's favor, the revised points are no longer in issue on appeal.
DO v SSWP [2021] UKUT 161 (AAC)
Section 12(8)(a) of the Social Security Act 1998 allows tribunals to identify issues even if not raised by the parties.
Social Security Act 1998, section 12(8)(a)
Tribunals must apply relevant binding case law and explain their reasoning when exercising discretion under Section 12(8)(a) of the Social Security Act 1998.
DO v SSWP [2021] UKUT 161 (AAC)
Tribunals must make adequate findings of fact to support conclusions; a mere rehearsal of evidence is insufficient.
Case Law
Outcomes
The FTT's decision was set aside.
The FTT made material errors of law by failing to adequately consider the DWP's revised recommendation and the principles in DO v SSWP regarding what remained in issue.
The case was remitted to the FTT for rehearing.
Further factual findings were needed, and the FTT was best placed to make them.