![[2024] UKUT 410 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Heading
Between
KW
Appellant
- v -
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Respondent
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Fitzpatrick
Decided on consideration of the papers
Representations:
Appellant: Mr Spriggs, Sunderland Council Welfare Rights.
Respondent: Ms Elhakim, DMA, Leeds.
On appeal from:
Tribunal: FTT (SEC)
Tribunal Case No: SC 236/22/00556
Tribunal Venue: Sunderland
Decision Date: 27.11.23
The appellant in this case is anonymised in accordance with the practice of the Upper Tribunal approved in Adams v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Green (CSM) [2017] UKUT 9 (AAC), [2017] AACR 28.]
SUMMARY OF DECISION
1. In considering Activity 9 Engaging with other people face to face, it is important both to take a holistic approach to the assessment of the evidence rather than focus on one area such as the appellant’s employment and to consider Schedule 1 of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 where Engage socially is defined as (a) interact with others in a contextually and socially appropriate manner;(b) understand body language; and (c) establish relationships see also HA v SSWP (PIP) [2018] UKUT 56 (AAC)
2.Where an appellant states they have difficulty doing an activity due to pain it is important to make careful findings of fact and consider the application of Regulation 4(2A) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 see also CPIP/2377/2015,PS v SSWP [2016] UKUT 0326 (AAC) and LB v SSWP [2024] UKUT 338 (AAC).
3. When considering an application for an adjournment or postponement it is important to consider the triumvirate of issues outlined in MA v SSWP [2009] UKUT 211 (AAC) (CA/1546/2009) namely (i) the benefits of an adjournment (ii) the reason the party is not ready and (iii) the impact of an adjournment on the other party and the Tribunal system as a whole. It would be exceptional for an adjournment that would otherwise be granted to be refused solely on account of the needs of the system as a whole
Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judge follow.
DECISION
- 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