![[2024] UKUT 339 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Submissions
Submissions
The parties have both agreed: to the Upper Tribunal finding that there were the errors of law set out at paragraphs 34 to 54 of this decision; to the daily living component part of the First-tier Tribunal’s decision being set aside for the reasons in those paragraphs; and to the Upper Tribunal referring the daily living component part of the case for redetermination entirely afresh by the First-tier Tribunal.
- 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