Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 18 (AAC)

Fecha: 28-Jul-2021

First-tier Tribunal decision

First-tier Tribunal decision

Miss S appealed to the First-tier Tribunal by a form completed on 26 February 2021 (pages A26 to A29).

10.

The First-tier Tribunal on 28 July 2021 upheld CICA’s review decision. The First-tier Tribunal’s findings included the following—

(1)

The applicant’s evidence was evasive and unreliable, and she lacked credibility (paragraphs 5 and 6, First-tier Tribunal’s written reasons);

(2)

There was nothing of significance in the medical evidence before them (contained at pages C1 to C183) to support her claim of having a prolapsed disc (paragraph 5, written reasons). Rather, any diagnosis of a prolapsed disc came solely from what the applicant had told a psychiatrist (paragraph 5, written reasons. Psychiatrist report referred to is at page C175).

(3)

The police report did not suggest that the applicant had been kicked once or twice in the back, let alone as she was contending three times in the back over three incidents. Nor did the police report suggest she had been kicked in the back in 2009, the year she said she had suffered a prolapsed disc (written reasons, paragraph 5).

(4)

The First-tier Tribunal was not persuaded that the applicant had a prolapsed disc at all or that, if she did, any back problem could be related to the domestic violence (written reasons, paragraph 5).

(5)

The applicant had various underlying mental health problems going back over a period of time, not connected to domestic violence, including gynaecological problems, fertility problems, a miscarriage and caring for her ill mother (written reasons, paragraph 6).

(6)

The claim that she had been unable to work since 2009 was contradicted by the evidence before the First-tier Tribunal, which suggested that she had had transient work at least between 2009 and 2015, and had a contract with London city airport from as recently as 2015 to 2017 (written reasons, paragraph 7).

(7)

The applicant’s contention that she had not worked for three years before her contract with the airport was terminated was contradicted by the medical records, (written reasons, paragraph 7).

(8)

The First-tier Tribunal was not persuaded that there was little prospect of the applicant being unable to work, or that she had not worked, as a direct result of the injury from the crime of violence (written reasons, paragraph 7);

(9)

Any disabling mental health condition arising from the domestic violence did not continue to be a significant problem, so no higher award could be made than the award made by CICA in its review decision (£5,500 for a disabling mental injury of between 2 and 5 years) (written reasons, paragraph 7).

11.

The First-tier Tribunal upheld the award for disabling mental injury and upheld the amount awarded by CICA for the physical injury. The First-tier Tribunal agreed with CICA that no award was merited for loss of earnings.

12.

The table below sets out the CICA decisions and First-tier Tribunal findings—

	Original CICA decision	CICA review decision	Tribunal decision
Disabling mental injury	A8 (typo for A7) £6,200 - “lasting 2 years or more up to 5 years” With 20% reduction for exacerbation	Same: A7 £6,200 - “lasting 2 years or more up to 5 years” With 20% reduction for exacerbation	Tribunal confirmed CICA decision.
	Original CICA decision (continued)	CICA review decision (continued)	Tribunal decision (continued)
Physical abuse	B3 £2,000 x 30% “Serious abuse - intermittent physical assaults resulting in an accumulation of healed wounds, burns or scalds, but with no appreciable disfigurement” (which original decision labelled “severe”)	Increase: B6 £5,500 x 30% “Severe abuse - pattern of repetitive violence resulting in minor disfigurement”	Tribunal confirmed amount of award that CICA had given.
Loss of earnings payment	No loss of earnings payment	Same	Tribunal confirmed CICA decision.
Special expenses payment	No special expenses payment	Same	Tribunal confirmed CICA decision.