![[2024] UKUT 410 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Factual background
Factual background
The appellant made a new claim to PIP on 01/02/2022 and submitted a PIP2 questionnaire form dated 23/02/2022. A telephone consultation was carried out with a Healthcare Professional (HP) on 28/05/2022. A decision letter was issued on 21/06/2022 informing the appellant that she scored 6 points for daily living descriptors: 1b, 4b and 6b and 0 points for the mobility component of PIP. As the appellant did not meet the minimum 8-point threshold for an award at the standard rate she was not entitled to PIP from 01/02/2022.
The appellant requested a Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) of that decision. However, following the MR the claimant was notified in a letter dated 22/07/2022 that she scored 4 points for daily living descriptors 1b and 4b and 0 points for the mobility component of PIP. The claimant then lodged an appeal against her PIP decision, with HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS).
Following the appeal hearing held on 27/11/2023, the Tribunal refused the appeal and confirmed the Secretary of State’s decision.
Legal framework
- 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