[2024] UKUT 244 (AAC)

Between:

CF

Appellant

- v -

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

Respondent

Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Stout

Decided on consideration of the papers

Representation:

Appellant: Jakub Mikulski (Free Representation Unit)

Respondent: L Ropel (DMA Leeds)

On appeal from:

Tribunal: First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

Tribunal Case No: SC323/22/01276

Digital Case No.: 1658273862299092

Tribunal Venue: Chelmsford (by telephone)

Decision Date: 5 June 2023

Anonymity: The appellant in this case is anonymised in accordance with the practice of the Upper Tribunal described in Adams v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Green (CSM) [2017] UKUT 9 (AAC), [2017] AACR 28.

CF -v- SSWP (PIP) Appeal no. UA-2024-000104-PIP

NCN: [2024] UKUT 244 (AAC)

SUMMARY OF DECISION

PERSONAL INDEPENCE PAYMENT – DAILY LIVING ACTIVITIES (42)

The Tribunal erred in law by failing to recognise that prescribed compression stockings constituted “therapy” within the meaning of Schedule 1 to The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (the PIP Regulations). The Tribunal should have considered whether the appellant met any descriptor in activity 3 (managing therapy or monitoring a health condition) as a result of her difficulties in putting on and taking off the stockings.

As the compression stockings met the definition of “therapy”, difficulties with putting them on and taking them off could not also qualify the appellant for points under activity 6 (dressing and undressing). However, the Tribunal also failed to make adequate findings of fact to enable it to consider whether the appellant qualified for any points under activity 6 as a result of difficulties dressing or undressing with ‘normal’ clothes.

The Tribunal further erred in law in its consideration of activity 9 (engaging with other people face to face).

On the particular facts of this case, the Tribunal also erred in law in failing to consider of its own motion whether fairness required it to adjourn to a face-to-face hearing rather than proceeding by telephone.

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.

CF -v- SSWP (PIP) Appeal no. UA-2024-000104-PIP

NCN: [2024] UKUT 244 (AAC)

DECISION