![[2024] UKUT 410 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
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
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 Enforcement Act 2007, I set that decision aside and remit the case to be reconsidered by a fresh tribunal in accordance with this decision and the following directions
DIRECTIONS
The appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision of 21st June 2022 is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for re-determination.
The composition of the Tribunal panel that re-determines the appeal must not include any member of the panel whose decision I have set aside.
If the claimant wishes the First-tier Tribunal to hold an oral hearing before her remitted appeal is determined she must make a written request to the First-tier Tribunal to be received by that Tribunal within one month of the date on which this decision is issued.
If the claimant wishes to rely on any further written evidence or argument, it is to be supplied to the First-tier Tribunal so that it is received by that Tribunal within one month of the date on which this decision is issued.
Apart from directions 1 and 2, these directions are subject to any case management directions given by the First-tier Tribunal.
The parties are reminded that the law prevents the First-tier Tribunal from taking into account circumstances not applying at the date of decision (section 12(8) of the Social Security Act 1998). This does not prevent the tribunal from taking into account evidence that came into existence after that date if it says something relevant about the circumstances at the date of decision.
These Directions may be supplemented by later directions by a Tribunal Caseworker, Tribunal Registrar or First-tier Tribunal Judge.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
This is an appeal against the decision of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) of the 27th of November 2023 in which the FTT confirmed the decision of the Secretary of State of the 21st of June 2022 that the appellant was not entitled to either component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP), having scored four points for the daily living component and zero points for the mobility component.
I granted permission to appeal on 19th June 2024 and the respondent has supported the appeal on two out of the 3 grounds of appeal advanced by the appellant. I broadly agree with the respondent’s submissions, and given the recurring nature of these issues I consider it may be helpful to set out the reasons for my 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