[2024] UKUT 311 (AAC)

misquoting the test in Note 2 of the Tariff to the scheme and appearing to assume that, without a substantial adverse impact on Ms H’s day-to-day activities, the disabling mental injury was present but not permanent;

failing to seek a further report from Dr Holt on the issues on which the First-tier Tribunal found Dr Holt’s report lacking;

failing to find that Dr Holt did report sufficiently on functioning;

failing to find that Dr Holt’s report was evidence of permanence;

failing to take sufficient account of, and to give sufficient weight to, Dr Alachkar’s first two reports;

failing to give sufficient weight to evidence from years before Ms H made her criminal injuries compensation claim that showed a lack of day-to-day functioning;

failing adequately to take into account, and failing to give sufficient weight to, evidence that Ms H left school at 13 and then spent the rest of the time in her bedroom;

failing to give sufficient weight to the statement of Ms H’s partner, W;

placing too much weight on the contraceptive implant;

failing to ask Ms H why she has the contraceptive implant;

placing too much weight on the lack of GP entries as to sexual dysfunction;

mischaracterising Ms H’s evidence as to her sexual relationship with her partner and impliedly inferring that she was lying about that relationship;

making a finding not supported by the evidence as to the reason for Ms H stopping driving immediately after passing the driving test; and

failing to give sufficient weight to Ms H’s reminder to the First-tier Tribunal that she had grown up at her Nana’s.