SP v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

I am satisfied on the arguments before me that that the First-Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) erred in law in the decision to which it came on 21 February 2025 and that its decision should be set aside as a result.

The FTT erred in law in failing to provide any adequate explanation for why it did not accept the appellant’s and their partner’s evidence about the appellant needing to be prompted to dress, or needing to be prompted to eat. An award of two points for either of these two PIP activities would have led to an award of the standard rate of the daily living component.

The Secretary of State supports the appeal being allowed on the ground on which I have allowed this appeal in a helpful submission to the Upper Tribunal dated 21 October 2025. That submission expands on and explains further the basis of the ground on which this appeal is being allowed. The material parts of that submission, with which I agree and which I adopt as my own, read as follows:

“4.2

It is my submission, that the FtT has erred in law in both their fact finding and duty to provide adequate reasons for their decision. The conclusions from the FtT on how they assessed the claimant’s functional abilities appears limited in their reasoning. It seems that what the FtT has provided at paragraph 10 of the SOR with regards to the claimant’s difficulties with daily living activity 2 – taking nutrition and 6 – dressing and undressing, appears to be no more than a rehearsal of part of the evidence and a conclusion without an adequate explanation.

4.3

The claimant suffers from a depressive disorder, including inattentive or mixed/combined ADHD (diagnosed 16/01/2023), PTSD and situational anxiety. They also have severe IBS, dysmenorrhea, allergies and undiagnosed dyscalculia.

4.4

Turning to the ground of appeal, as noted in the PTA at point 2 (repeated above) the FtT found that the claimant did not satisfy daily living activity 2d – needs prompting to take nutrition and daily living activity 6c – needs either prompting to be able to dress, undress or determine appropriate circumstances for remaining clothed or prompting or assistance to be able to select appropriate clothing as they provided the following reasons detailed at paragraph 10 of the SOR which states:

“10.

In respect of the questions put by the Disability Member, they confirmed that they can cook a meal, they shared the labour for cooking. They suffer from tiredness. They do the washing up. The medication for ADHD has helped. They eat every day but will snack anything in front of them. When prompted, they will eat. They wash twice a week after vigorous prompting. In respect of dressing, they sit on their bed and shiver for up to an hour. This happens every day. They do not wear pyjamas. They have been better since May 2023. There has been an improvement but it has not gone.”

4.5

The FtT in their reasoning (repeated above) appear to have simply summarised the evidence before them and then concluded that at the date of the decision under appeal, the claimant did not satisfy daily living activity 2d, without providing adequate reasoning to support and explain how they reached their conclusion that the claimant was able to take nutrition in accordance with the provisions of Regulations 4(2A) and 7 of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (the PIP Regs 2013).

4.6

It is unclear how the FtT concluded that the claimant does not score points for daily living activity 2 when it is acknowledged within the SOR (repeated above) that the claimant: “When prompted, they will eat”. Therefore, in reaching their conclusion, the FtT does not appear to engage with the evidence, specifically within the SSC1 form, where the claimant states that they have difficulty feeling hunger due to ADHD and gut issues. Therefore, as a result they need to be prompted to eat by their wife:

“I am sure that I declared that I have difficulty in feeling hunger indicators, and need to be prompted to eat. I have lived with my wife for many years and place a great deal of trust in her ability to help me make decisions. Whether or not it’s time to eat is invariably one of them, as I will simply continue with whatever has my attention until I make myself unwell. This is due to a combination of dysregulated routine from ADHD, and due to a poor relationship with my physical gut, wherein I experience such constant pain that it is very hard to discern any hunger signal at any time” (p3-4, FtT bundle).

4.7

Although the SOR does acknowledge that the claimant needs prompting to eat, it fails to explore whether the claimant can take nutrition in accordance with Regulations 4(2A). For instance, the FtT remain silent on the evidence that indicates that the claimant does not eat to an acceptable standard and/or repeatedly. There are multiple occasions within the evidence that indicate the claimant never eats more than two meals a day. Within the PIP2 form, dated 10/11/2022, the claimant states: “My wife cooks simple or comforting foods in order to encourage me. My ADHD and other conditions make both beginning and ending planned activities very difficult, so I never eat more than two meals a day (and fairly often only eat one). I am also very bad at drinking – my wife ensures that there is always a jug of water in my space, and brews a pot of coffee every day” (p34, FtT bundle). As well as further evidence within the PA4 consultation form, dated 12/02/2023, where the nurse states that they will only eat one meal a day (p74, FtT bundle).

4.8

In view of this, it is unclear how the FtT reached the conclusion that the claimant is capable of taking nutrition without prompting and whether they are able to do so within the requirements of Regulation 4(2A) of The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013. As such, I respectfully submit that the FtT have provided inadequate reasons to explain their decision and further findings of facts are required in relation to daily living activity 2.

4.9

In addressing point 2, similarly to daily living activity 2, the FtT found that the claimant did not satisfy daily living activity 6c – dressing and undressing detailed at paragraph 10 of the SOR (repeated above).

4.10

It is noteworthy, that the FtT does not examine if the claimant needs prompting to be able to dress and undress regardless of the fact that the SOR (paragraph 6) does state: “…They are prompted to eat, dress and sleep...” The FtT does not seem to engage with the evidence within the PIP2 form, dated 10/11/2022, that indicates that the claimant, due to their ADHD, struggle to dress and decide on an appropriate outfit without prompting from their wife: “Due to my ADHD symptoms I can have difficulty in completing the steps required to choose and put on an outfit, and often seek assistance from my wife. She also has to decide whether an outfit is appropriate, because I have difficulty with this” (p43, FtT bundle).

4.11

Additionally, it is highlighted by the claimant within a SSC1 form, that upon needing to get dressed they will remain stuck in bed often for hours at a time if they are without the prompting of their wife:

“Due to my ADHD and chronic pain from IBS, I struggle to process the series of tasks required to dress myself. My wife assists me in choosing clothes and dressing. Without her assistance I will simply be stuck in bed becoming more and more anxious, often for hours at a time. It is immensely frustrating to be a person of reasonable intelligence and reading and yet be faced with such impairments, but nonetheless ADHD will do this to a person. I did not and do not state that I dress unaided” (p4-5, FtT bundle).

Whilst it is correct that the FtT can attribute what weight they find appropriate, it must explain adequately why it did so. As such, I submit that the FtT have failed to give adequate reasons as to why evidence was not accepted when deciding not to award points per regulation 4(2A) of the Social Security (PIP) Regulations 2013. This I submit is a further error in law.

4.12

If the UT Judge accepts my submission that the FtT has erred in law, I invite her to set aside the FtT’s decision and remit the appeal to be re-heard by a differently constituted FtT.

4.13

For completeness, the UT Judge will wish to know that the claimant has not made any further claims for PIP.”

For the reasons set out above, the appeal succeeds. The Upper Tribunal is not able to re-decide the first instance appeal. The appeal will therefore have to be re-decided afresh by a completely differently constituted FTT, after an oral hearing.

The appellant’s success on this appeal to the Upper Tribunal on error of law says nothing one way or the other about whether their appeal will succeed on the facts before the new FTT, as that will be for that tribunal to assess in accordance with the law and once it has properly considered all the relevant evidence.