[2024] UKUT 450 (AAC)

In my decision to grant permission to appeal (20 February 2024), I adopted Judge King’s reasons for refusing permission to appeal on the ground pleaded. However, in the exercise of my own inquisitorial function, I was satisfied at the permission stage that the FtT arguably did err in law for reasons I summarise from my PTA decision, which were five-fold:

First, the FtT arguably failed to adequately consider Regulation 4(2A) when reaching findings on daily living activities 1 (preparing food), 4 (washing and bathing) and 6 (dressing and undressing) and mobility activity 2 (moving around). Secondly, the FtT failed to adequately consider 4e (requires assistance to get into or out of a bath or shower), in circumstances where the aid arguably adapted the bath (grab rail) and therefore should not have been taken into account. Thirdly, the FtT arguably failed to identify which aids could improve, provide or replace the Appellant’s impaired function to dress and undress and give reasons explaining how the aid(s) did this. The fourth and fifth grounds can be taken together, the FtT arguably failed to consider material evidence when rejecting his evidence that he had trouble swallowing and making budgeting decisions.

It is only the second ground which is unsupported by the Respondent.