![[2024] UKUT 410 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
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
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 reasonable time. For the purposes of this decision, it is not necessary to consider this in detail, however, this approach to the consideration of the relevance of pain in the context of being able to perform a PIP activity in accordance with Regulation 4(2A) has been recently underscored by Upper Tribunal Judge Perez in LB v SSWP [2024] UKUT 338 (AAC) albeit in the context of mobility, but I see no logical reason why the same approach should not be applied to the other PIP activities. In my respectful view the FTT failed in its inquisitorial duty to make sufficient findings of fact in relation to how the pain claimed by the appellant impacted on her ability to carry out a number of PIP activities in accordance with Regulation 4(2A) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013. On this basis the FTT is in error of law. I would add the FTT’s starting point for the consideration of the relevance of pain (paragraph 23 above) is sub optimal as it appears both to make assumptions about legislative intentions and appears somewhat blinkered to the application of Regulation 4(2A).
Adjournment and proceeding without the appellant
This is the appellant’s remaining ground of appeal and given my conclusions in relation to the other grounds, it will not materially affect the outcome of this case. For the sake of completeness however I note rule 2 relates to the overriding objective to ensure each case is dealt with fairly and justly. Rule 31 pertains to proceeding in a party’s absence:
- 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