GB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The appeal relates to the personal independence payment (‘PIP’), in particular whether the appellant is entitled to either component of PIP at any rate from 7 June 2023. He was in receipt of the middle rate of the care component of disability living allowance until 3 October 2023.

The appellant is a young man aged 18 who lives at home with his parents. He suffers from Type 1 diabetes.

The appellant claimed PIP on 7 June 2023 when he reached the age of 18. On 3 September 2023 the claim was refused on the basis that he scored no points in respect of the daily living and mobility activities set out in Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013.

On 15 August 2024 the First-tier Tribunal (‘FtT) heard and dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The appellant and his appointee attended the hearing and the appellant was represented at the hearing.

The appellant (through his appointee) appeals against the FtT’s decision with the permission of a Judge of the Upper Tribunal and requests an oral hearing of his appeal. The grounds are broadly that the FtT failed to properly consider the evidence as to the appellant’s condition and its effect on his ability to perform the daily living and mobility activities in the PIP test.

An appeal to a Judge of the Upper Tribunal will be successful only if the decision of the FtT is erroneous in point of law. There will be an error of law if the FtT did not give adequate reasons for its decision.

Upper Tribunal Judge Church granted permission to appeal on the grounds that it was arguable that the reasons given by the FtT were wholly inadequate to explain its decision.

The Secretary of State supports the appeal.

Having read the Decision Notice and the Statement of Reasons for Decision I agree with Upper Tribunal Judge Church. I find it impossible to understand how the FtT came to its decision. Although paragraphs 31 -34 of the Statement of Reasons for Decision are headed ‘Reasons and Detailed Findings of Fact’ it is unclear on reading those paragraphs or the Statement of Reasons for Decision as a whole how the FtT determined that the appellant did not satisfy any of the point-scoring descriptors claimed and listed at paragraph 28 of that Statement. For this reason the FtT’s decision is wrong in law.

There is no need for me to hold an oral hearing of the appellant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal as I am satisfied that the decision of the FtT was wrong in law and neither party is arguing to the contrary. My decision and directions are as set out above.