LJF v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

This is an appeal, with my permission, against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Sheffield Castle Street on 14 April 2025.

I shall refer to the appellant hereafter as “the claimant”. The respondent is the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I shall refer to him hereafter as “the Secretary of State”. I shall refer to the tribunal which sat on 14 April 2025 as “the Tribunal” and the tribunal to which I am remitting the matter as “the new tribunal”.

The claimant appealed against the decision of 15 April 2024 that she was entitled to 6 points for the daily living component and 0 points for the mobility component of personal independence payment. She was not therefore entitled to either component of personal independence payment from and including 9 January 2024. The decision was subsequently reconsidered, but not revised, on 5 September 2024.

The matter came before the Tribunal on 14 April 2025 when the claimant did not appear, having elected for the matter to be decided on the papers, but the Tribunal considered that it was fair to proceed in her absence. The appeal was refused.

The Tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to 6 points for the daily living component and 0 points for the mobility component of personal independence payment. She was not therefore entitled to either component of personal independence payment at the standard rate from and including 9 January 2024.

On 10 October 2025 I acceded to the claimant’s application and granted her permission to appeal. It seemed to me that there was an arguable case that the Tribunal had erred in law for the reasons set out in her grounds of appeal.

On 27 November 2025 the Secretary of State provided submissions and supported the appeal.

The claimant had nothing to add on 15 January 2026.

The Secretary of State confirmed that the claimant had not made any further claim for personal independence payment after the hearing on 14 April 2025.

Neither party has sought an oral hearing and I do not consider that it is necessary to hold one in order to resolve the matter. Both parties have also consented to a decision without reasons under rule 40(3) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.

The Secretary of State submitted that

“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 14 of the SOR with regards to the claimant’s difficulties with daily living activity 1 – preparing food and mobility activity 2 – moving around, appears to be no more than a rehearsal of part of the evidence and a conclusion without an adequate explanation.

4.3

The claimant has Osteoarthritis which affects her hips, knees, back, ankle and wrist. She has had ongoing issues in her right wrist due to an accident. She also experiences aching in her right forearm and in her hand as well as pins and needles in her hand/forearm. In the same accident she also punctured her lung and fractured her ribs; she still gets pain in her chest when she bends forward at the hips. It affects her every day. Cold weather makes the pain worse. She uses tubigrip under her clothing on her arm/wrist. Upon her knee replacements in 2009 and 2022 she still gets aches and pains and cannot walk as far as she used to. The claimant also suffers from chronic back pain. Due to a right ankle fracture she experiences stiffness and inflexibility which causes instability and can give way. She also has difficulty bending due to back, hip, knee and ankle issues. For her Osteoarthritis she takes co-codamol which she takes when she leaves the house or goes for a walk due to pain. The claimant has also suffered from urine incontinence for several years which the GP claims to be due to anxiety. Her anxiety and depression were diagnosed in 1998 which she has tried antidepressants for; however, she stopped due to lack of benefits. Her stress and anxiety cause problems when mixing socially, it makes her angry and she has a short patience threshold.

4.4

Turning to the ground of appeal, the FtT found that the claimant did not satisfy daily living activity 1e – Needs supervision or assistance to either prepare or cook a simple mealas they provided the following reasons detailed at paragraph 10 of the SOR which states:

“14.

Activity 1, preparing food: the tribunal were not satisfied that [the claimant] needed an aid or assistance to prepare a simple meal for one person. [The claimant] had sufficient hand function and strength to use crutches, drive a manual car, sew and knit. [The claimant] had fractured her hand 30 years ago but had worked and driven since. The GP evidence at page 45 does not reference a condition of the hands or wrists. [The claimant] told the HCP (P52) that she can peel and chop in short stints and a short stint would be sufficient to prepare enough vegetables for one person. The impact of [the claimant’s] knee and hip conditions would not affect her whilst upright and bending is not considered under this activity. [The claimant’s] ability to stand is also supported by her ability to mobilise for 1 hour.”

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 1e, without providing adequate reasoning to support and explain how they reached their conclusion that the claimant was able to prepare food without supervision or assistance.

4.6

Upon reading the SOR, it is unclear how the FtT concluded that the claimant does not score points for daily living activity 1. The FtT do not appear to engage with the evidence which suggests that the claimant is not able to prepare food due to her arthritis causing significant pain in her hand/wrist and ability to stand for prolonged periods. For instance, the claimant states in the PIP2 form, dated 01/02/24, that her husband assists her in preparing food due to her arthritis and issues with gripping:

“I have problems gripping due to my arthritis in all joints. This makes preparing vegetables difficult and unsafe. My husband does this for me so I don’t slip and cut myself. I cannot open jars due to no grip in my hands. My husband will do this for me. We use an electric can opener when opening tins as I would lose grip and cut myself if doing this manually. Preparing food is not safe due to my condition. My husband carries and lifts food onto hobs, in microwaves and in the oven as I would drop the food. It is not safe for me to do most cooking and preparing. I could stir food items on the hob under supervision but this is the only activity I can do safely.”

Based on this evidence, it is apparent that the FtT made inadequate findings of fact in reaching the conclusion that the claimant is capable of preparing food without the supervision or assistance.

4.7

The FtT also assert that she has the hand function to use crutches, drive a car, knit and sew, however, arguably preparing food requires differing functions such as lifting pans, standing for long periods of time and chopping vegetables. The evidence repeated above suggests that although the claimant can drive a car and knit, she still requires assistance when preparing and cooking a meal.

4.8

Additionally, the FtT state that there is no GP evidence of a condition affecting her hand or wrists, whilst remaining silent on evidence submitted by the claimant which states her arthritis affects her whole body, including her wrist and forearm.

“As mentioned before I have arthritis in my joints making preparing food from fresh difficult. Whilst in the discussion we discussed that I do prepare fresh meals, this is from support of my husband which was not made clear. I cannot prepare or cut fresh food safely or repeatedly due to lack of grip and pain with arthritis. I also cannot lift pans of food onto the hob or into the oven to cook as arthritis does not allow me to do this. I am unsure as to why this would not be considered as without cooking the food is not edible. I would also like to note that whilst you state I have no medical history of my left hand being affected, this is in fact incorrect as I have arthritis across my whole body. With arthritis affecting all my body, preparing food and cooking is not possible without the assistance to either prepare or cook a simple meal. Therefore, I believe I should have scored 4 points for this section.”

Therefore, this evidence clearly contradicts the FtT’s assertion that there is no evidence suggesting a condition causing the claimant pain in her hand or wrist. Perhaps, it was incumbent upon the FtT to at the very least consider the claimant’s contradictory statement of the existence of arthritis in all her joints and the way it impacts her ability to prepare and cook a simple meal. As such I submit that further findings of fact are required.

4.9

The FtT also suggest that the claimant’s knee and hip conditions would not affect her ability to stand for prolonged periods whilst preparing or cooking a meal; claiming that she can chop and peel in ‘short stints’. However, upon reading the HCP report, it contradicts the conclusions of the FtT, as it indicates at page 50-52 of the HCP report that: “She can sit down to do ironing. She struggles to do other things such as bending/stretching/standing so her husband does most of this. She can do some light washing up in short spells. She cannot bend to hoover” and “She feels able to stand for 10 minutes before needing to rest due to pain.” Arguably, this evidence suggests that at the very least the claimant requires an aid such as a perching stool.

4.10

In light of this, should not the FtT have used their inquisitorial duty to clarify and make further findings in order to establish what the claimant’s and the FtT’s definition of ‘short stint’ was and explore further how her condition impacts her ability to stand for long periods of time, the impact of the issues pertaining to the claimant’s grip and pain in her hand/wrist when preparing and cooking a meal.

4.11

Furthermore, it is unclear how the FtT reached the conclusion that the claimant is capable preparing food and whether she is able to do so within the requirements of Regulation 4(2A) of The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, when considering she is at risk of cutting herself, unable to be able to stand for long periods of time due to significant pain and is at risk of injury.

4.12

In addressing point 2, the FtT found that the claimant did not satisfy mobility activity 2 – moving around detailed at paragraph 21 of the SOR:

“21.

Activity 12, mobilising: No points were scored as [the claimant] told the HCP that she can mobilise for one hour (p54). Even with stopping and starting the distance covered in one hour would far exceed the 200 metres on a flat surface that is required to start scoring points in this activity. Bending is not a factor when mobilising as it is undertaken whist upright.”

4.13

Upon reading the evidence, it is unclear how the FtT reached the conclusion that the claimant should not score points for mobility activity 2. It was noted by the FtT at paragraph 21 (repeated above) that the claimant can mobilise for one hour that would far exceed 200 metres without stopping for breaks. However, it is not apparent upon my reading how the FtT made these conclusions. For instance, it appears the FtT have not considered evidence suggesting that the claimant cannot continuously mobilise for one hour:

“She gets aches and pains in the right hip still, she cannot walk as far as she used to, she has to rest it when moving, she is unable to give variability despite prompting, just reports movement/walking makes it worse and cold weather… Her right ankle is unstable and can give way if she is not careful. She reports difficulty bending due to back, hip, knee and ankle issues” (PA4 form, p51)

Therefore,it was incumbent upon the FtT to explain and consider this evidence in order to establish whether the claimant is able to walk 200 metres to an acceptable standard and within a reasonable time.

4.14

Furthermore, the FtT claim that the HCP (p54) states that she can mobilise for one hour without taking breaks. Upon reading the evidence, however, the HCP does not state that, rather the HCP notes that she does in fact have rests in between mobilising due to pain whilst using an aid:

“She goes for a walk 2-3 times a week, she walks at a slow pace using her walking stick, she goes for an hour in total, during this walk she has rests in between (she doesn't know how many despite prompting). She reports generally she can walk for 10 minutes before needing to rest due to pain, she would need to rest for 1-2 minutes before repeating that distance. She is unable to give more examples despite prompting” (HCP report, p54).

4.15

As such, the FtT have not provided adequate reasoning as to why they have not considered the evidence which clearly states that the claimant requires frequent breaks due to significant pain upon mobilising whilst using an aid and have made inadequate findings of fact in relation to mobility activity 2.

4.16

When considering the evidence (repeated above), it is unclear how the FtT reached the conclusion that the claimant is capable of standing and then moving more than 20 metres but no more 50 metres to an acceptable standard and therefore whether she is able to do so within the requirements of Regulation 4(2A) of The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013.

4.17

In view of the above, Irespectfully submit that the inadequacy of reasons makes it difficult for a claimant to know whether a FtT applied the correct legal tests in assessing the evidence, making its findings of fact, and arriving at its decision. Notwithstanding my support of the above grounds, I courteously submit that the further ground raised by the claimant’s representative, will be subsumed by the newly constituted FtT.

4.18

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.”

For the reasons identified by the Secretary of State, I am satisfied that the Tribunal made errors of law which were material to the decision and for that reason the decision of the Tribunal should be set aside.

In the circumstances I do not need to consider whether the Tribunal made any other errors of law.

I am satisfied that the resolution of any other grounds of appeal will fall to be subsumed at the hearing before the new tribunal.

I therefore allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the Tribunal. I remit the matter to a new tribunal which should conduct a complete rehearing of the matter.

I must stress that the fact that this appeal to the Upper Tribunal has succeeded should not be taken as any indication as to the outcome of the rehearing by the new tribunal. It is quite possible that the new tribunal may end up effectively coming to the same decision as the previous Tribunal, namely that the claimant was not entitled to either component of personal independence payment from and including 9 January 2024.

Alternatively, it is possible that the new tribunal might take a different view of the facts from that of the Tribunal and reach the conclusion that in fact the claimant was entitled to one or other or both components of personal independence payment from and including 9 January 2024.

It is for the new tribunal itself to decide which of these alternative options open to it applies, depending on the view it takes of the facts and providing it makes proper findings of fact and gives adequate reasons. It would not be appropriate for me to express any opinion either way on the merits of the appeal.

The following directions apply to the hearing before the new tribunal:

The new tribunal should not involve any member who was a member of the Tribunal involved in the hearing of the appeal.

The new tribunal must considerand make relevant findings as to whether or not the claimant satisfied the criteria to be awarded the daily living component and/or the mobility component of personal independence payment from and including 9 January 2024. In so doing the new tribunal should in particular have regard to the claimant’s grounds of appeal dated 10 June 2025 and the submissions of the Secretary of State dated 27 November 2025.