[2023] UKUT 151 (AAC)

The Appellant’s case has the benefits of both clarity and simplicity. In short, he argues that there has been no change for the better in his health (which indeed had worsened) over the whole of the period in question since he made the transition from DLA to PIP. As noted above, he had previously been entitled to the highest rate care component and the higher rate mobility component of DLA. As such, the Appellant contends that his entitlement to the enhanced rates of both PIP components should have started the day after his DLA award ended in 2016. To that extent, he submits that the FTT erred in law in essence by not going back far enough in time.

Miss Emma Fernandes, the Secretary of State’s representative in these proceedings, agrees that the FTT erred in law but not in the way argued for by the Appellant. In particular, she does not agree that the effective date for the change can go back to a date in 2016. In summary, Miss Fernandes submits that the FTT’s hands were effectively bound by a start date of 16 January 2018, being the date that the Appellant had applied for a supersession, and could not go back to 26 August 2017. She also contends that the FTT failed to explain adequately how it had arrived at its start date for the new award.

There has been no application by either party for an oral hearing of this appeal. The issues have been thoroughly explored in two rounds of written submissions from the parties. I am satisfied it is fair and just to determine the appeal ‘on the papers’.