[2023] UKUT 151 (AAC)

At its most basic level, the FTT’s decision involves an error of law in that the reasons given for identifying 26 August 2017 as the operative date for the supersession decision are inadequate in (at least) the following three respects.

First, the FTT’s decision notice stated that “the commencement date is the date on which the appellant first notified the respondent of a change in circumstances”, yet there is no evidence this took place on 26 August 2017.

Secondly, the FTT’s statement of reasons makes the bold assertion that “it would have been open to the respondent to award [the Appellant] at the level decided by this tribunal from the day after the previous tribunal decision which is to say 26 August 2017”. There is no explanation of how this fits in with the legislative requirements for determining the effective date of a supersession decision.

Thirdly, that passage is then contradicted by the reference to 15 January 2028 as the end date for the award, being 10 years from the date of the application for a supersession, meaning that the application was recognised as having been made on 16 January 2018 and not 26 August 2017.

However, inadequate reasons aside, there are at least three more fundamental difficulties with the FTT’s decision about the start date for the award of the enhanced rate of both PIP components, namely: (1) it disregarded the Upper Tribunal’s direction on remittal of the appeal; (2) it was confused as to the correct date for the supersession to take effect; and (3) it changed its mind after announcing the decision on the appeal.