[2023] UKUT 151 (AAC)

In summary the FTT erred in law because its decision was inadequately reasoned, it was confused as to the operative date for the supersession decision and it purported to change its decision after it had been promulgated orally. The failure to follow the Upper Tribunal’s direction about the effective date was not material, given that although the direction had identified the correct DWP decision date there was no reference to the need to identify whether there was any earlier effective supersession date.

However, the FTT was correct to resist the Appellant’s argument that his entitlement to both the enhanced rates of PIP should run from the date in 2016 when his DLA award ended. His entitlement to PIP in 2016 was ultimately governed by the un-appealed FTT decision of 25 August 2017, which had confirmed the award of the standard rate of the daily living component for the period from 12 October 2016 to 18 August 2019. That decision was not appealed further and could not by law be revised. The earliest date from which a supersession of that award could take place was 16 January 2018, the date of the Appellant’s telephone application. No amount of dissatisfaction with the Appellant’s previous representative or representatives can change that. As noted at the outset of this decision, this outcome is the consequence of the decision-based system of social security adjudication and appeals and the effect of the principle of finality.

I am satisfied that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law for the reasons set out above.