![[2024] UKUT 338 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Analysis
Analysis
Errors of law
The First-tier Tribunal erred in law in relation to mobility activity 2, as follows.
First, the First-tier Tribunal made no findings as to how long the supermarket aisles in question were, or as to how long it took the claimant to walk along them. The First-tier Tribunal needed to make findings on both in order to make a finding as to whether the walking was able to be done within a reasonable time period (within the definition in regulation 4(4)(c)).
Second, the First-tier Tribunal made no findings as to—
whether the claimant would then reasonably need to repeat the two aisles of the supermarket;
whether, if he did reasonably need to repeat the two aisles, how many times he would reasonably need to repeat them (regulation 4(4)(b));
whether he was able to repeat walking those two aisles before having to stop; and
whether, even if he had been able to complete the two aisles within a reasonable time period on the first time of completing them, he was able to complete them within a reasonable time period (and safely)—
on the first repetition of that journey (if a repetition was reasonably required); and
on each subsequent repetition that was reasonably required.
Third, the First-tier Tribunal made no finding as to the level of pain the claimant is in while walking. The First-tier Tribunal needed to make such a finding in order to be satisfied that the walking was – even if able to be done safely, repeatedly and within a reasonable time period – able to be done to an acceptable standard (PS v SSWP [2016] UKUT 326 (AAC), CPIP/665/2016). This applied even to the first round of walking two supermarket aisles. Walking despite pain is not to an acceptable standard.