[2025] UKUT 357 (AAC)

Appeal No. UA-2025-000570-PIP

Between:

LAG (by her appointee LB)

Appellant

- v -

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

Respondent

Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Stout

Decided on consideration of the papers

Representation:

Appellant: In person

Respondent: Clare Pettet, DMA Leeds

On appeal from:

Tribunal: First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

First-tier Tribunal Case No: SC337/23/00851

First-tier Tribunal Digital Case No: 1695-7237-6061-8889

First-tier Tribunal Venue: Leeds (in person)

First-tier Tribunal Hearing Date: 1 October 2024

SUMMARY OF DECISION

PERSONAL INDEPENDENCE PAYMENT: ENGAGING WITH OTHERS (42.9)

The appellant has a diagnosis of Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder and Anxiety Disorder. There was evidence that she had been confrontational in social situations, including involvement in violent altercations. There was also evidence that the appellant was avoiding social engagement in order to avoid confrontational situations. The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for concluding that the appellant did not satisfy daily living activity descriptor 9d on a majority of days (“cannot engage with other people due to such engagement causing either: (i) overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant; or (ii) the claimant to exhibit behaviour which would result in a substantial risk of harm to the claimant or another person”). The Tribunal erred by proceedings on the basis that as the appellant had not in fact exhibited behaviour that posed a substantial risk of harm to herself or others on a majority of days descriptor 9d was not satisfied. The combined effect of regulations 4(2A) and 7 is that the descriptors need to be considered on the basis that a claimant is carrying out the activities as often as is reasonable for them to be carried out and, if the claimant is not carrying out the activities as often as is reasonable, the Tribunal needs to consider why the claimant is not doing so. If it is because of the claimant’s disability, then the Tribunal needs to consider whether the descriptor would apply on the majority of days if the claimant did in fact carry out the activity as often as was reasonable.

Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judge follow.

DECISION