PH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)

The tribunal must undertake a complete reconsideration of the issues that are raised by the appeal and, subject to the tribunal’s discretion under section 12(8)(a) of the Social Security Act 1998, any other issues that merit consideration.

The reconsideration must be undertaken in accordance with KK v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKUT 417 (AAC).

The tribunal that re-determines the appeal must not include any member of the panel whose decision has been set aside by the Upper Tribunal.

These Directions may be supplemented or amended by later directions made by a Tribunal Judge in the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal.

This is the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (“the FTT”), dismissing her appeal against a decision of the Respondent, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, upon her entitlement to Personal Independence Payments (“PIP”). Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was given by Upper Tribunal Judge Wikeley on 15 August 2025.

The Secretary of State’s representative has now supported the appeal, saying that there were errors of law in the FTT’s decision and inviting the Upper Tribunal to send the case back to the tribunal for rehearing. The Appellant has replied, supporting this course of action. In those circumstances, all I need to do is to say briefly why I have set aside the FTT’s decision and explain what is meant by a rehearing. It is not necessary to set out the history of the case or to analyse the evidence and arguments in detail.

Neither party has asked for an oral hearing, and I am satisfied that I can dispose of this matter fairly and justly on the papers. Not only is there agreement between the parties on the appropriate outcome, but the material issues have been fully articulated in the written arguments before me and the underlying papers.

Why I have set the First-tier Tribunal’s decision aside

I have set the tribunal’s decision aside because, first, I accept the point agreed by the parties, that the FTT’s treatment of the medical evidence obtained from the Appellant’s GP was unsatisfactory and wrong in law.

The FTT noted that the evidence before it included a “statement put together by the Citizens Advice Bureau … based on what they were told by the Appellant which was put to her GP …. to agree or disagree with.” It continued: “As a basis for evidence the tribunal considered the CAB statement to be unsatisfactory as it is effectively putting words in the mouth of the doctor instead of obtaining his medical opinion”. The statement appears to have been discounted by the FTT on that basis.

I accept the point made by both the Appellant and the Respondent, that examination of the doctor’s comments on the CAB statement reveals that he engaged with its contents, and specifically that he noted points of disagreement or made qualifications to the points put before him, and that this did not amount to mere acceptance of words ‘put into his mouth’. Further consideration of the weight to be given to this evidence was needed, and there is merit in the point made by the Respondent’s representative, that:

“It is clear from the GP’s responses to the CAB letter dated 05/03/2024, that they are referring to their own knowledge of the claimant when agreeing with the statements, including where they were unable to agree or disagree that they noted their own opinion. Why would they do that if this was not based on their own medical opinion. Would a GP agree with a statement if it was not true? As such, it is my submission that the FtT erred in law by failing to provide an adequate explanation as to why it rejected the evidence from the claimant’s GP.”

The second ground of appeal relates to whether the FTT failed to give adequate reasons in respect of the part of the test that was put in issue for PIP Activity 5 (“managing toilet needs or incontinence”). On this, I also accept that the FTT’s reasons do not clearly address the point that was in issue in the appeal (and supported by the GP’s evidence), namely the Appellant’s claim that she needed assistance to manage incontinence of the bowel. It may be that the Tribunal’s ultimate decision was that any assistance required was not sufficiently frequent as to entitle the Appellant to a further award of points on this basis (see its conclusion, “she does [not] require any assistance on the majority of days and so the two points already awarded were accepted as correct by the tribunal”) but the reasoning is insufficiently clear.

I do not need to address the FTT’s reasoning on this Activity in any further detail as the claim under this head is an issue which will be reconsidered afresh in the rehearing that will now take place.

What will happen at the rehearing

For the benefit of the Appellant, this is the effect of the decision in KK to which I have referred in my directions.

The tribunal must follow the directions I have given.

The rehearing will not be limited to the grounds on which I have set aside the tribunal’s decision. The tribunal will consider all aspects of the case, both fact and law, entirely afresh.

Nor will the tribunal be limited to the evidence and submissions that were before the tribunal at the previous hearing. It will decide the case on the basis of the relevant evidence and submissions made at the rehearing.

The tribunal must come to its own conclusions on the issues of both fact and law that it considers. Nothing in my decision or in my reasons for it is an indication of the likely outcome of the rehearing. Nor will the tribunal be bound by any conclusions of fact or law reached by the tribunal in the decision that I have set aside.