Appeal No. UA-2024-000394-PIP
Between:
SD
Appellant
- v -
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Respondent
Before: Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Hocking
Decided on consideration of the papers
Representation:
Appellant: Mind in Croydon
Respondent: Stuart May
On appeal from
Tribunal: Social entitlement chamber
Tribunal Case No: SC154/23/01797
Tribunal Venue: Sutton
Decision Date: 23/11/2023
DECISION
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal.
DIRECTIONS
This case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) for reconsideration at an oral hearing.
It must be heard by an entirely fresh panel.
The FtT must conduct a complete rehearing of the issues that are raised by the appeal and, subject to the FtT’s discretion under section 12(8)(a) of the Social Security Act 1998, any other issues that merit consideration. While the FtT will need to address the grounds on which I have set aside the decision, it should not limit itself to these but must consider all aspects of the case, both fact and law, entirely afresh.
A further claim was made on 30 November 2023 and awarded on 9 April 2024. Therefore the FtT is concerned with the period 13 January 2023 to 30 November 2023
The new FtT is not bound by the decision of the previous FtT. Depending on the findings of fact it makes, the new FtT may reach the same or a different conclusion to the previous FtT. The fact that this appeal has succeeded on a point of law carries no implication as to the likely outcome of the rehearing, which is entirely a matter for the FtT to which this case is remitted.
These Directions may be supplemented by later directions by a Tribunal Judge in the Social Entitlement Chamber of the FtT.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Decision on the papers
Neither party requests an oral hearing. Considering rules 34 and 2 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 I am satisfied that I can deal with the case fairly on the papers, and that it is in the interests of justice that I do so.
Factual background and the grounds of appeal
The appellant made a claim for PIP on 18 January 2023. The appellant was notified in a letter dated 04 April 2023 that their claim had been unsuccessful, with no award for any points for either the daily living or mobility activities of PIP. That decision was upheld in a mandatory reconsideration letter dated 31/05/2023.
The appellant then lodged an appeal with the FtT on 16 June 2023. The appeal was heard on 23/11/2023 with the Tribunal refusing the appeal. There are conceded points for Daily Living activities 3(b) and 4(b) (3 points)).
Grounds of appeal
The appellant raises the following appeal points (the wording is mine):
He was not given a fair hearing in that the FtT may have made its mind up before hearing all of the evidence, and the appellant may not have been adequately assisted to give his evidence
The appellant’s wife gave significant evidence. It is clear from the decision this cannot have been accepted (or at any rate did not carry the day) but it is not clear why
Related to the point above, inadequate findings were made as to daily living activities 1, 6, 9, and the mobility activity of planning and following journeys.
Permission to appeal was given on all grounds. UT Judge Brewer said this:
the FtT arguably erred in the reasons they gave because it is unclear from the SoR what weight, if any, was given to Mrs [D’s] evidence in their overall assessment of the evidence before them. There is a qualitative difference between their recording that they had her evidence before them and setting out in their reasons what they made of her evidence. Their findings of fact at §§11-21 make no reference to either her written or oral evidence. If the FtT were going to reject her evidence they arguably should have provided reasons for doing so, given her evidence went to the core issues before them.
The respondent’s reply
The respondent agrees the appeal should be allowed. They make the point that although the basis for the conceded points is unclear, it may suggest underlying impairments that would be relevant to other daily living activities (for example, a dosette box is used to manage medication, apparently because of problem with forgetfulness and co-ordination: is that relevant to the activity of preparing a meal? They conclude:
Although the FtT is entitled to give weighting to whatever evidence that it chooses, where there is conflicting evidence, it must in the first instance explore and consider it in a holistic manner and provide sufficient reasons explaining why it preferred the evidence that it had. In this appeal the FtT does not appear to have done that. There appears to be a distinct lack of reference to the evidence provided by the claimant, his wife and the medical evidence which demonstrate the long-standing nature of her health conditions. Therefore, it could be said that had the FtT given appropriate consideration to all the evidence, including accurately identifying the effects of the claimant’s conditions, the FtT may have considered the claimant’s limitations. As such, I submit that the FtT have failed to give adequate reasons as to why evidence in parts was not accepted when deciding not to award points.
Decision
When deciding whether to award points for each of the daily living or mobility activities, the FtT must assess all of the relevant evidence holistically, giving each part of that evidence reasonable whatever weight they think fit Karanakaran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] 3AER 449
The respondent raises the issue of consistency. In order to be sustainable findings must be logical and consistent: if a claimant is found to be unable to organise himself to undertake one activity, but able to organise himself to undertake another of seemingly the same complexity, the apparent inconsistency must at the least be explained by reference to the evidence. It might be thought best to make findings as to impairment first, and then relate those to each activity, provided evidence relevant only to a specific activity is not overlooked. For example if forgetfulness is in issue it may be helpful to make a global finding as to forgetfulness and then apply that finding to each activity.
As to reasons, as the Senior President of tribunal’s practice direction makes clear (Footnote: 1), expectations must be reasonable. FtTs are busy and they do not need to deal with every piece of evidence that may be before them. However they : “must always be adequate, clear, appropriately concise, and focused upon the principal controversial issues on which the outcome of the case has turned. To be adequate, the reasons for a judicial decision must explain to the parties why they have won and lost. The reasons must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the main issues in dispute” The fundamental problem with the decision under appeal, and the reason this appeal has been allowed, is that the appellant’s wife gave apparently cogent evidence as to impairment that was not accepted, and it is not clear why. Perhaps the evidence was less cogent than it appears. Perhaps it was felt to be outweighed by other evidence. Perhaps it was overlooked, or discounted for no adequate reason. The reader cannot tell, and so they cannot understand how the matter was decided as it was.
Conclusion
Under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 I therefore set the FtT decision aside and remit the case to be reconsidered by a freshly constituted panel. I stress that that result has no implications for how the FtT may ultimately decide this case: that will be a matter for their discretion based on the evidence before them.,
Stephen Hocking
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Authorised by the Judge for issue on 16 September 2025