Appeal No. UA-2025-001211-PIP
Between:
AH
Appellant
- v -
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS
Respondent
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Stout
Decided on consideration of the papers
Representation:
Appellant: Community Law Service (Northampton & County)
Respondent: Miss R Howard, DMA Leeds
On appeal from:
Tribunal: First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
First-tier Tribunal Case No: SC290/24/00275
Judge/Panel: Tribunal Judge D French, Mr T D Lines and Dr M Skinner
First-tier Tribunal Digital Case No: 1726-0501-6981-5657
First-tier Tribunal Venue: Birmingham (on the papers)
First-tier Tribunal Hearing Date: 16 January 2025
DECISION
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved an error of law. Under section 12(2)(a), (b)(i) and (3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, I set that decision aside and remit the case to be reconsidered by a fresh tribunal in accordance with the following directions.
DIRECTIONS
This case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration at an oral hearing.
The new First-tier Tribunal should not involve the tribunal judge, medical member or disability qualified member previously involved in considering this appeal on 16 January 2025.
The appellant is reminded that the new First-tier Tribunal can only consider the appeal by reference to their health and other circumstances as they were at the date of the original decision by the Secretary of State under appeal (namely 21 June 2024).
If the appellant has any further written evidence to put before the First-tier Tribunal relating to that period, including any further medical evidence, this should be sent to the relevant HMCTS regional tribunal office within one month of the issue of this decision.
The new First-tier Tribunal is not bound in any way by the decision of the previous tribunal. Depending on the findings of fact it makes, the new tribunal may reach the same or a different outcome to the previous tribunal.
These Directions may be supplemented by later directions by a Tribunal Caseworker, Tribunal Registrar or Judge in the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
The appellant appeals against the First-tier Tribunal’s decision of 16 January 2025 refusing the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State of 21 June 2024 that the appellant was entitled (only) to the standard rate mobility component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) under Part 4 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (WRA 2012) and The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/377) (the PIP Regulations).
The decision under appeal was a supersession decision. On the basis of a new medical assessment, the Secretary of State superseded the appellant’s previous award of PIP at enhanced rate for the daily living component and standard rate for the mobility component with an award of (only) the mobility component at the standard rate, with 6 points awarded on daily living activities 1b, 4b and 6b and 8 points for mobility 2c. The First-tier Tribunal confirmed the Secretary of State’s decision and dismissed the appeal.
The First-tier Tribunal’s Statement of Reasons (SoR) was issued on 1 May 2025 and permission to appeal was refused by the First-tier Tribunal in a decision issued on 4 July 2025. The appellant filed the notice of appeal to the Upper Tribunal on 1 August 2025 (in time).
Following my granting permission to appeal, the Secretary of State responded to the appeal. The Secretary of State indicated that he supports the appeal. Both parties invited me to make a decision on the papers. I am satisfied it is appropriate to do so given the lack of dispute between the parties and the nature of the issue.
The grant of permission to appeal
I gave permission to appeal for the following reasons:
The grounds of appeal are directed solely to the First-tier Tribunal’s conclusion on activity 9.
I agree that it is arguable that the First-tier Tribunal has erred in law in its consideration of activity 9, both because it has made incorrect assumptions about the number of days that the appellant takes his children to school and his contact with other [parents] and members of staff, and because it has failed to consider the whole of the relevant statutory test.
In considering Activity 9 Engaging with other people face to face, it is necessary to take a holistic approach to the assessment of the evidence rather than focus on one area such as (here) contact with his children and other parents, and to consider the definition of “engage socially” in Schedule 1 to the PIP Regulations, which is: (a) interact with others in a contextually and socially appropriate manner;(b) understand body language; and (c) establish relationships: see HA v SSWP (PIP) [2018] UKUT 56 (AAC) and KW V SSWP [2024] UKUT 410 (AAC).
The potential error of law is material because the appellant only needed 2 more points for an award of the daily living component at the standard rate.
Why I am allowing the appeal
The Tribunal’s SoR stated as follows in relation to daily living activity 9:
“(ix)Socialisation- The Appellant had his children staying with him and would take them to school a couple of times per week. That would necessitate the Appellant having some contact with other parents and members of staff. This Tribunal was satisfied that 0 points were justified under the statutory criteria.”
The Secretary of State in supporting the appeal draws attention to the following:
The claimant has asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosed around 1985 and 2009. He has had asthma since he was a child, and he was diagnosed with COPD around four years ago. He often experiences chest infections and as a result he experiences shortness of breath, tight chestiness and chest pains. He also suffers with anxiety and depression which was diagnosed around 20 years ago. Consequently, he has ended up in hospital after taking an overdose a couple of years ago. He takes antidepressants and experiences insomnia due to the side effects. Due to this condition on the majority of days he experiences lacking motivation, low mood, insomnia, mood swings, suicidal thoughts, feeling very down about day-to-day life, feeling fatigued all the time. He also has social anxiety. He takes Citalopram, Eklira, Fostair, Ventolin inhaler, Montelukast, Zopiclone, Mirtazapine and Folic acid.
…
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 across all daily living activities providing inadequate reasoning to support and explain how they reached their conclusion that the claimant was able to engage with others in accordance with the provisions of Regulations 4(2A) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (the PIP Regs 2013).
The claimant struggles to engage with other people face-to-face. For example, it is stated that “he struggles in social situations, rarely starting a conversation or being able to keep one going” (PIP Form Supplementary Information, FtT bundle, p.54). It is also expressed by the claimant that he does require prompting and encouragement from someone he trusts and someone familiar to support him when engaging with unfamiliar people (PA4 Form, FtT bundle, p.74).
However, it is concluded in the SOR that the claimant can engage with others because he takes his children to school. This, it is argued, equates to him being able to engage with others face-to-face as it necessitates the claimant having contact with parents and members of staff (UT bundle, p.18). Yet, the claimant states:
“It is also noted that I have to pick my children up from school. Which I do on occasion, because it is absolutely necessary… It does cause me anxiety to have to do this and to be around so many people, but I have to push through it because it is an absolute necessity and is not something I can avoid… To be perfectly honest, I think it is absolutely despicable and disgusting that my children have been used in this manner, as a reason to deny me the daily living component award” (Information for PIP, Mandatory Reconsideration, FtT bundle, p.204).
Therefore, it could be argued that although he does pick up his children, it does not mean, that not only is he possibly not doing this on the majority of days but it leaves one wondering if he does, in fact, engage with others when collecting his children? As HA v SSWP (PIP) [2018] UKUT 56 (AAC) outlines, the claimant should be able to engage with adults, not just children. Consequently, the FtT have given inadequate reasons for their conclusion in their treatment of Daily Living activity 9 as well as their treatment of evidence.
Furthermore, the claimant also clearly outlines that he is struggling significantly with his mental health … (Information for PIP, Mandatory Reconsideration, FtT bundle, p. 198).
…
In view of the above, I respectfully submit that the inadequacy of reasons makes it difficult for the claimant to know whether the FtT applied the correct legal tests in assessing the evidence, making its findings of fact, and arriving at its decision. Furthermore, the errors of law identified and detailed within this submission are material, as had the claimant been awarded at least 2 additional point for the daily living descriptors of PIP she would have scored sufficient points to be awarded the enhanced rate for the daily living component of PIP.
At the permission stage, I only had to be satisfied the appeal was arguable. At this final stage, I need to be satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the First-tier Tribunal erred in law. I am so satisfied. The First-tier Tribunal erred in law in the ways I identified in my grant of permission to appeal. Those errors were material as there was evidence from which the First-tier Tribunal could have concluded the appellant scored at least 2 points on daily living activity 9, and that would have been sufficient to entitle the appellant to an award of the daily living component. I therefore set the decision of the First-tier Tribunal aside and remit the case for re-determination by a new panel.
Holly Stout
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Authorised by the Judge for issue on 2 March 2026