The Secretary of State’s argument on the unsupported ground of appeal
The Secretary of State’s argument on the unsupported ground of appeal
The Respondent submits that the relevance of an aid or an appliance is directed only to whether it enables the individual to carry out an activity that they otherwise could not carry out. In so far as a feature such as handles on a bath, is present and could assist any person, irrespective of functional impairments, it could not constitute an aid or appliance for the purposes of the regulations, CW v Secretary of state for Work and Pensions(PIP) [2016] UKUT 197 (AAC) relied upon at [31]-[33]:
Further, it was submitted that an ‘aid’ or ‘appliance’ which is used in the act of bathing or showering is not relevant to the definition of the bath or shower itself. Aids and appliances which are used in the act of bathing or showering assist a person with a limitation in performing the activities but have no implications for the structure of the bath or shower. The Respondent goes on to identify a variety of aids and appliances commonly used to enable a person to carry out the activity of washing and bathing, which are not and do not become permanent features of the bath (i.e. bath board, bath chair etc). Specifically, that a handrail attached to the wall above a bath or near it, or on the wall of a shower cubicle, does not adapt the structure of the bath or shower. Therefore, the question of whether the aid adapts the bath or shower does not arise.
The Respondent submits that when assessing a claimant’s ability to carry out all the descriptors within activity 4, in all cases, this will be measuring the claimant’s ability when using a standard, or ‘unadapted’ bath or shower. The Respondent observed that this submission is consistent with the analysis in SP and the PIP Assessment Guide for descriptor 4e. In circumstances where a claimant can only get into or out of a bath or shower using an aid or appliance, they will be awarded 2 points under 4(b). If an aid or appliance does not enable a claimant to get into or out of an unadapted bath, it is only at this juncture that consideration needs be given to whether assistance is required for them to do so. The latter reflecting a higher level of need, leading to an increase in points awarded.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal made on 3 July 2023 under SC154/23/00620 was made in error of law. Under section 12(2) (a) and (b)(i)
- These Directions may be supplemented by later directions by a Tribunal Judge in the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal
- First, whether a device can constitute an aid as defined in Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (“the Regulations”), in circumstances where the device is a structural feat
- I am grateful to the Respondent for the supplementary submissions which are directed to the above issues The general scheme of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013
- Interpretation under Regulation 2, Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013
- Supervision, prompting and assistance
- Regulation 4(2A) of the Social Security (Personal Independent Regulations) 2013
- Regulation 4(4) defines these concepts as follows
- The provision under consideration in the present case
- The context in which the present issues arise
- The Findings of the First-tier Tribunal
- The Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal
- Grant of Permission to Appeal
- The Secretary of State’s argument on the unsupported ground of appeal
- Analysis and Reasons
- Aids and Unadapted Bath or Shower
- As applied to the facts as found in this appeal
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 450 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)