![[2025] UKUT 357 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusion
The First-tier Tribunal in this case accordingly erred in law in its consideration of daily living activity 9. The errors were material as, if the appellant had scored more points on daily living activity 9 she would have qualified for the daily living component of PIP at the standard rate. I therefore set the decision of the First-tier Tribunal aside and remit the case for re-hearing before a fresh Tribunal panel.
Holly Stout
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Authorised by the Judge for issue on 20 October 2025
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved an error of law. Under section 12(2) (a), (b)(i) and (3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforc
- These Directions may be supplemented by later directions by a Tribunal Caseworker, Tribunal Registrar or Judge in the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal
- Factual background The First-tier Tribunal records the factual background as follows
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The grant of permission
- The approach of the Upper Tribunal
- Why I am allowing the appeal
- Conclusions