[2025] UKUT 020 (AAC)

The Appellant made his first claim to PIP on 12 April 2021. In a decision dated 7 November 2021, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (“the Respondent”, “SSWP” or “DWP”) refused to award the Appellant either component of PIP. The Appellant appealed to the FTT.

In its decision dated 13 March 2023 the FTT allowed the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Respondent. The FTT awarded the Appellant 8 points for daily living activities but 0 points for mobility activities. This was sufficient for the award of the standard rate of the daily living component which requires eight points but insufficient for the award of the mobility component which also requires eight points.

Most relevantly, the FTT found that the Appellant had made a second claim to PIP on 29 July 2022 which had been subject to a negative determination on 25 September 2022. It therefore awarded the Appellant the standard rate of the daily living component of PIP from 12 April 2021 (the date of the Appellant’s first claim to PIP) to 28 July 2022 (the day before the second claim to PIP).

The FTT provided a statement of reasons for decision (“SOR”) dated 3 July 2023.

The Appellant sought permission to appeal the FTT decision to the Upper Tribunal. The District Tribunal Judge sitting in the FTT refused permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (‘UT’) on 21 August 2023.

I held an oral hearing of the application for permission to appeal by video on 22 May 2024. I granted the Appellant permission to appeal to the UT in a decision dated 28 May 2024 in respect of two grounds of appeal which are set out below. I refused permission to appeal in respect of the other grounds of appeal pursued by the Appellant.

I held an oral hearing of the Appellant’s appeal by video (CVP) on 20 December 2024. The Appellant appeared in person and Mr Edwards of counsel appeared for the Respondent. I am very grateful to them both for the quality of the submissions they made.