![[2024] UKUT 410 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
“ The legislation envisages a claimant carrying out the descriptors in pain or discomfort. Parliament deliberately excluded pain or discomfort from the PIP legislation. Pain is not included in any of
“The legislation envisages a claimant carrying out the descriptors in pain or discomfort. Parliament deliberately excluded pain or discomfort from the PIP legislation. Pain is not included in any of the descriptors. It is not one of the components of regulation four….. It means an ability to carry out a descriptor can be undertaken with pain or discomfort”.
In my respectful judgment, this is a problematic starting point for the FTT to approach the issue of the relevance of pain in terms of the ability to complete a PIP activity. Leaving aside the issue of divining what Parliament may or may not have intended, it takes no cognisance of the caselaw pertaining to this issue. It is now well established that pain (if accepted) can and often is relevant to a claimant’s ability to carry out a PIP activity to an acceptable standard and, in my view, it may also be relevant to whether the activity can be done repeatedly and within a reasonable time. I note in particular the approach taken by Upper Tribunal Judge Parker in CPIP/2377/2015 where she said of regulation 4(2A) and 4(4):
… Matters such as pain, and its severity, and the frequency and nature, including extent, of any rests required by a claimant, are relevant to the question of whether a claimant can complete a mobility activity descriptor ‘to an acceptable standard’…
- Heading
- 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 Enforc
- Factual background
- The appellant’s representative has advanced a number of grounds on which they argue the FTT is in error of law. These can be divided into 3 broad categories. The first relates to potential breach(es)
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The grounds of appeal and the parties’ submissions
- Analysis
- “ Her family are her main support, and they speak daily. She feels she gets nervous around people, her confidence is affected due to her physical issues. She has struggled with new and unfamiliar peop
- "… requires significant motivation and concentration. It is likely to involve having to deal with patients who are agitated. It is highly pressured. The ability to perform this job day in day out is i
- " The observations of the assessor and the nature of the job means the tribunal finds the appellant does not have a mental health condition that affects her ability to deal with other people...The app
- It is now widely accepted that the definition of "engage socially" in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Personal Independence Payments) Regulations 2013 applies to daily living activity 9
- In my judgment it was incumbent on the tribunal to consider the claimant’s ability to satisfy the three components of the phrase “engage socially”, and to make adequate findings of fact as to the natu
- ………the term “engage socially” is not limited to such people (known to the appellant). Rather, a tribunal must consider a claimant’s ability to engage with people generally, and not just those people t
- Regulation 4(2A) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013
- "Reference is made to fibromyalgia and chronic pain syndrome. However, this does not prevent the appellant from carrying out the functions of receptionist..." (written reasons, para 51)
- “ The legislation envisages a claimant carrying out the descriptors in pain or discomfort. Parliament deliberately excluded pain or discomfort from the PIP legislation. Pain is not included in any of
- This was quoted with approval by Upper Tribunal Judge Markus KC in PS v SSWP [2016] UKUT 0326 (AAC) who went on to consider the relationship between acceptable standard, repeatedly and within a reason
- If a party fails to attend a hearing the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing if the Tribunal—
- Conclusions