Appeal No. UA-2025-001402-PIP
THE UPPER TRIBUNAL HAS ORDERED that, without the permission of the Tribunal, no one shall publish or reveal the name or address of the Appellant in these proceedings or any information that would be likely to lead to the identification of them or any member of their family in connection with these proceedings. Any breach of this order is liable to be treated and punished as a contempt of court.
Between:
KPZ | Appellant |
v | |
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions | Respondent |
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs
Decided on 24 May 2026 without a hearing.
Representation:
Claimant: Not represented
Secretary of State: DMA Leeds
Decision of Upper Tribunal
On appeal from the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
Reference: SC319/24/02000
Decision date: 31 March 2025
Hearing: Birmingham
As the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error in point of law, it is SET ASIDE under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the case is REMITTED to the tribunal for rehearing by a differently constituted panel.
DIRECTIONS:
A. The tribunal must undertake a complete reconsideration of the issues that are raised by the appeal and, subject to the tribunal’s discretion under section 12(8)(a) of the Social Security Act 1998, any other issues that merit consideration.
B. The reconsideration must be undertaken in accordance with KK v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKUT 417 (AAC).
C. In particular, the tribunal must investigate and decide KPZ’s entitlement to a personal independence payment on their claim that was made on 26 April 2024 and refused on 18 July 2024.
D. In doing so, the tribunal must not take account of circumstances that were not obtaining at that time: see section 12(8)(b) of the Social Security Act 1998. Later evidence is admissible, provided that it relates to the time of the decision: R(DLA) 2 and 3/01.
Reasons for Decision
Upper Tribunal Judge Robinson gave KPZ permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal. The Secretary of State’s representative has supported the appeal, saying that there were errors of law in the tribunal’s decision and inviting the Upper Tribunal to send the case back to the tribunal for rehearing. KPZ has agreed. Given that agreement, all I need do is to say why I have set aside the tribunal’s decision and explain what is meant by a rehearing. It is not necessary to set out the history of the case or to analyse the evidence and arguments in detail.
KPZ has asked for an oral hearing. From the context, however, they appear to be asking to attend the rehearing before the First-tier Tribunal, which they will be entitled to do.
Why I have set the First-tier Tribunal’s decision aside
I have set the tribunal’s decision aside on the grounds identified by the Secretary of State’s representative in her submission of 27 April 2026. A copy of that submission will be in the papers before the First-tier Tribunal at the rehearing. If it is not, KPZ has a copy and will be able to provide it for the tribunal if asked.
In short, the grounds on which I set aside the decision relate to: (a) its failure to adjourn, or at least consider adjourning, for KPZ to attend; and (b) its consideration of daily living component activity 4 (washing and bathing). The tribunal will benefit from seeing what the Secretary of State’s representative has to say about the latter.
I do not need to deal with any other error in point of law that the tribunal may have made. Any that were made will be subsumed by the rehearing.
What will happen at the rehearing
For the benefit of KPZ, this is the effect of the decision in KK to which I have referred in my directions.
The tribunal must follow the directions I have given.
The rehearing will not be limited to the grounds on which I have set aside the tribunal’s decision. The tribunal will consider all aspects of the case, both fact and law, entirely afresh.
Nor will the tribunal be limited to the evidence and submissions that were before the tribunal at the previous hearing. It will decide the case on the basis of the relevant evidence and submissions made at the rehearing.
The tribunal must come to its own conclusions on the issues of both fact and law that it considers. Nothing in my decision or in my reasons for it is an indication of the likely outcome of the rehearing. Nor will the tribunal be bound by any conclusions of fact or law reached by the tribunal in the decision that I have set aside.
Authorised for issue | Edward Jacobs |