[2024] UKUT 450 (AAC)

Appeal No. UA-2024-000064-PIP

RULE 14 Order:

Pursuant to rule 14(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, it is prohibited for any person to disclose or publish any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the Appellant in these proceedings.

Between:

BC

Appellant

- v -

Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions

Respondent

Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Brewer

Decided on consideration of the papers

Representation:

Appellant: Unrepresented

Respondent: Mr Denis Edwards, Counsel

On appeal from

Tribunal: First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

Tribunal Case No: SC154/23/00620

Tribunal Venue: Sutton (telephone hearing)

Decision Date: 3 July 2023

SUMMARY OF DECISION

Assessment of Functional Impairment and the Definition of “Aid” Under the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013

The decisions in CW v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2016] UKUT 197 (AAC) and AP v SSWP [2016] UKUT 0501 (AAC) do not establish that the ‘normality of behaviour’ is determinative of whether a device qualifies as an aid. Nor do they support a principle that a claimant cannot demonstrate functional impairment merely because the device used is also commonly employed by individuals without impairments. Such an approach would unduly narrow the scope of what may constitute an aid and would be inconsistent with the statutory definition.

The regulations define an aid as ‘any device which improves, provides or replaces a claimant’s physical or mental function.’ The use of the word ‘any’ reflects the breadth of the definition, focusing not on the nature of the device itself, but on its functional role in assisting the claimant to perform the relevant descriptor task.

Accordingly, bath handles, though forming part of the bath structure and commonly present in many households, can constitute an aid where they are used to overcome a functional impairment. I am satisfied that where a claimant has evidenced a physical condition, and established that, but for the bath handles, he could not get into or out of a bath, the handles meet the definition of an aid. That is because they are a device which operates to overcome the functional impairment in question. The fact that the handles are part of the bath itself and that individuals without functional impairments also use them is an unnecessary distraction.

The central issue remains the assessment of the claimant’s level of disability in performing the descriptor task, and the identification of any device that is, or could be, used to mitigate the functional limitation.

DECISION