![[2023] UKUT 151 (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 made on 11 August 2021 under number SC065/18/00926 was made in error of law. Under section 12(2)(a) a
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal made on 11 August 2021 under number SC065/18/00926 was made in error of law. Under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, I set that decision aside and re-make the First-tier Tribunal’s decision as follows:
The Appellant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision dated 12 May 2018 is allowed.
Daily living descriptors 1b, 3b, 4c, 6c, 9c and 10b (13 points in total) apply, as do mobility descriptors 1d and 2b (14 points in total).
The Appellant is accordingly entitled to both the enhanced rate of the daily living component of PIP and the enhanced rate of the mobility component of PIP for the period from 16 January 2018 to 15 January 2028.
REASONS FOR DECISION
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal made on 11 August 2021 under number SC065/18/00926 was made in error of law. Under section 12(2)(a) a
- This appeal to the Upper Tribunal: the result
- The benefits adjudication and appeals machinery
- The Appellant’s first Personal Independence Payment FTT appeal
- Pausing there
- The Appellant’s second Personal Independence Payment FTT appeal
- The proceedings and submissions before the Upper Tribunal
- The Upper Tribunal’s analysis
- The First-tier Tribunal’s disregard of the Upper Tribunal’s direction on remittal
- The First-tier Tribunal’s confusion as to the correct date for the supersession
- The First-tier Tribunal changed its mind after announcing its decision
- Summary of Upper Tribunal’s analysis
- Disposal of the appeal
- Conclusions