[2025] UKUT 020 (AAC)

The Appellant objected to the Respondent seeking to admit the fresh evidence of the determination of the second claim to PIP in February and May 2024. He submitted that it would be unfair to admit the evidence. He relied on the fact that all the correspondence from October 2023 onwards was irrelevant to this appeal because it took place subsequent to the FTT decision in March 2023. He argued that it should not be taken into account when considering whether the FTT made an error of law in making its decision at the material time because it was not before the FTT. He contended that the FTT had no power to make any findings in relation to the second PIP claim as it was only making a decision on the first PIP claim. He also argued that he only continued down the route of reigniting the second claim in October 2023 because he had been advised to continue down this route after losing his appeal in March 2023 in respect of the first PIP claim. It would be unfair for the UT to rely on further evidence that he had sent to the Respondent in November 2023 because it only existed because he lost his appeal before the FTT. He further submitted that the second claim initiated by telephone on 29 July 2022 was void, defective or not existence at that time and continued to be so at the time of the FTT’s decision in March 2023 and onwards up to the present day.

These were also submissions he relied upon in arguing that the FTT erred in law in making its decision in March 2023 that he had made a second claim to PIP that had been negatively determined. He alternatively submitted that even if the FTT admitted the fresh evidence, there was only a valid second claim made to PIP on the subsequent return of his PIP questionnaire in November 2023 so his entitlement to PIP on the first claim should at least be extended to that date and the FTT’s decision must be set aside and remade in his favour.

The Appellant did also volunteer that he had separately appealed to the FTT against the Respondent’s decision of February 2024 (as upheld on mandatory reconsideration in May 2024) in respect of his second claim to PIP. That appeal is waiting to be heard by the FTT.