JAT v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting in Reading on 19 September 2024 under reference SC303/23/00867is set aside and I remit this matter to a differently constituted panel in the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration.

This matter shall be referred to a District Tribunal Judge to give listing and case management directions.

Both the appellant and the respondent agree that the decision of the tribunal was made in error of law. The Secretary of State has indicated that they are content for this matter to be dealt with without reasons and on the papers. No reply has been received from the appellant.

Having considered the papers and the submissions, I am satisfied that I can make a decision on this appeal without directly hearing further from the parties. It is fair and just to do so. The respective positions are clear. I am only deciding whether there has been an error of law in the first tribunal’s decision. As a result, and with the overriding objective in mind, I do not see any benefit to either party in arranging a further hearing before this Upper Tribunal.

To assist the First-tier Tribunal (‘FTT’) on remittal, I produce below the concerns ventilated by Upper Tribunal Judge West in granting permission in this Personal Independence Payment (‘PIP’) appeal:

“I accede to the claimant’s application and grant her permission to appeal. Although she did not herself seek permission in relation to the daily living component, it seems to me that there is an arguable case that the Tribunal erred in law in relation to daily living activity 9. In particular, in relation to daily living activity 9, with which the Tribunal dealt in paragraph 9 of the statement of reasons, was not the appellant potentially entitled to points for either descriptor 9(b) or descriptor 9(c) in the light of the decisions in SF v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2016] UKUT 543 (AAC) (that the claimant engaged effectively with the healthcare professional or could attend for hospital appointments was not sufficient) and HA v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2018] UKUT 56 (AAC) (that the claimant could engage effectively only with others who were already known to him/her was not sufficient)?”

The Secretary of State supports this appeal. I produce part of the submission below, again in order to assist:

“2The Tribunal has recorded at paragraph 2 of the Statement of Reasons (SoR) it’s findings regarding the claimant’s health conditions. Of relevance to the matter under appeal is the Tribunal found the claimant to have been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, which takes the form of a thought disorder and delusional beliefs. Her mental health is managed with support from a mental health duty worker and by attending monthly appointments to have depot injections administered. Although the claimant’s mental health appears to have stabilised over the years, it appears this is due to the ongoing support she has available.

Despite finding that the claimant is diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, the Tribunal did not find this to impact her ability to engage with other people face to face unaided…..

….In reaching this decision the Tribunal noted that the claimant was able to engage with her neighbours, who were her friends.”

I adopt the reasoning articulated by Judge West in granting permission to appeal, together with the submissions advanced on behalf of the Secretary of State. In these circumstances, I am bound to allow the appeal.

In my judgment, the decision of the FTT discloses an error of law. Specifically, the FTT adopted an unduly narrow approach when assessing the claimant’s ability to engage with other persons.

Although the tribunal sought to provide comprehensive reasons, it failed to address whether the neighbours referred to were already known to the claimant and, critically, how she would engage with individuals unknown to her. This omission is significant given her evidence that such interactions present the greatest difficulty due to her mental health condition. (See HA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2018] UKUT 56 (AAC), where Upper Tribunal Judge Rowley emphasised that a tribunal must undertake a holistic assessment of a claimant’s ability to engage with others, considering a range of interactions and not limiting its findings to those involving familiar persons.)

This issue is material because an award of four points under descriptor 9(c) (requires social support to engage with other people) would have enabled the appellant to reach the qualifying threshold.

Accordingly, I direct that the matter be remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for a full rehearing.

For the avoidance of doubt, the fact that the appeal has succeeded at this stage should not be regarded as any indication of the outcome before the First-tier Tribunal in due course.