![[2024] UKUT 410 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
" 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
"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 appellant sees her family regularly. She confirmed she is able to go to appointments independently and speak up without difficulty. She has close friends. They visit her. She goes out for a coffee with a friend...If there was the level of difficulty-the need for prompting-she claims to have then the job she does would be impossible" (written reasons, para 48).
The Tribunal noted that the only reasonable adjustment appeared to be the appellant’s workstation.
Whilst the Tribunal noted that it accepted the observations of the mental state assessment provided by the HP, I agree with the submissions of the respondent in that it made presumptions of her ability to engage with other people face to face based largely on her employment. There is nothing wrong per se with the FTT taking relevant and genuinely comparable activities into account (JM v SSWP [2024] UKUT 283 (AAC) and (JMcD v Department for Communities (PIP) [2019] NICom 4 ) in the context of the appellant’s employment provided this is not to the exclusion of other areas of the appellant’s life. The FTT, in my respectful view, has failed to consider what may be entailed when the claimant engages with people face to face generally outside the work environment and whether she is doing so in accordance with regulation 4(2A) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, independently, or not. It also seems to me that the Tribunal did not properly consider the specifics of what daily living activity 9 involves when considering her ability to undertake this activity. “Engage socially” is defined in Schedule 1 of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, as:
interact with others in a contextually and socially appropriate manner;
understand body language; and
establish relationships
I note the comments of Judge Rowley in HA v SSWP (PIP) [2018] UKUT 56 (AAC) with which I agree:
- 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