Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 107 (AAC)

Fecha: 22-Sep-2023

Application of Regulation 4(2A) to the oral evidence in respect of PIP activities

Application of Regulation 4(2A) to the oral evidence in respect of PIP activities.

27.

As identified above, and at paragraph 6 of the permission decision by Upper Tribunal Judge Butler, whilst the Tribunal does refer to Regulation 4(2A) in its statement of reasons, the Tribunal’s conclusions on the descriptors does not grapple with various parts of CH’s evidence which suggested that, for at least some of the descriptors, CH may not be able to carry them out either safely, or to an acceptable standard, or within a reasonable period of time or repeatedly (Regulation 4(2A) of the PIP Regulations 2013). The following examples are given by CH’s representative in her application for permission:

(a)

Whilst CH could chop an apple or vegetables this caused her pain and that her timings when cooking were: “always off, I never get it right to be honest” and that she would eat a meal if it looked “edible” (Record of Proceedings, 39: 28 – 43.35).

(b)

The Appellant gave reasons for giving up her job, which included suffering from pain all over her body from her neck to her ankles, but pain is not mentioned in the statement of reasons as a reason for stopping work (Record of Proceedings paragraph 57.00).

(c)

That if CH did too much activity on one day, that would cause pain so that CH would not be able to go out the next day, but this was not referred to in the statement of reasons in respect of her mobility descriptor and whether or not she could therefore walk “to an acceptable standard”.

(d)

The PIP healthcare professional had recorded the appellant as saying she could walk 50 – 60 metres in 2 minutes but would then need to rest for 15 minutes (p22 of 281 of the FTT bundle). The Tribunal’s statement of reasons omits the need to rest, and the impact this may have given the need to consider Regulation 4(2A).

28.

The SSWP agrees with these submissions. I also agree with them. It appears as if the Tribunal failed to consider relevant evidence and failed to give reasons why it concluded that this information does not give rise to CH not being able to carry out some of the descriptors within a reasonable period of time, safely or to an acceptable standard.