![[2024] UKUT 339 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Factual and procedural background
Factual and procedural background
Secretary of State’s decisions
The claimant made a claim for both components of personal independence payment.
The claimant was assessed on 17 April 2023 by a health care professional for the Secretary of State (page 15). The HCP recommended two points for needing an aid or appliance to be able to wash or bathe (descriptor 4b), two points for needing prompting to be able to engage with other people (descriptor 9b), and zero points for the other daily living activities. The HCP recommended zero points for mobility activity 1: planning and following journeys, and four points for mobility descriptor 2b: can stand and then move more than 50 metres but no more than 200 metres, either aided or unaided.
The Secretary of State’s decision maker accepted that the claimant has: anxiety and depression, musculoskeletal problem – spine and lower limb, asthma and dyslexia.
On 2 May 2023, the Secretary of State’s decision maker decided that the claimant was not entitled to an award of personal independence payment from 16 February 2023 (pages 41 to 45). The decision maker awarded two points for needing an aid or appliance to be able to wash or bathe (descriptor 4b), and two points for needing to be prompted by another person to be able to engage with other people (descriptor 9b). Those four points did not suffice for a daily living award (regulation 5(3) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (Footnote: 1)). The decision maker awarded four moving around points, for being able to stand and then move more than 50 metres but no more than 200 metres either aided or unaided, and no points for planning and following journeys. Those four mobility points were not enough for a mobility award (regulation 6(3)).
On 6 July 2023, that decision was upheld on mandatory reconsideration.
- Heading
- Mrs QWH’s appeal is allowed
- Factual and procedural background
- Appeal to the First-tier Tribunal
- Late application to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal
- Grounds of appeal to the Upper Tribunal
- Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal
- Ground 1
- Ground 2
- Ground 3: activities 1, 2, 6 and 8
- Ground 3: toilet needs (activity 5)
- Ground 3: budgeting (activity 10)
- Submissions
- Law
- Activity 1: Preparing food
- I take each of those points in turn Failure adequately to consider and make a finding as to whether the claimant needs prompting to be able to prepare or cook a simple meal
- Adopting the HCP’s flawed findings
- Failure adequately to explain why the First-tier Tribunal found that the claimant had “for the majority of time, the…mental ability to prepare and cook a simple meal for one”
- Failure to make findings as to repeatedly, to an acceptable standard and within a reasonable time period
- Application of the wrong test and failure to make findings as to whether the claimant can do so on over 50% of the days (rather than “for more than 50% of the time” or “for the/a majority of the time”
- Activity 2: Taking nutrition
- Activity 8: Reading and understanding signs, symbols and words
- Ground 1 and dressing and undressing
- Disposal
- Conclusions