[2025] UKUT 020 (AAC)

Between:

I.S.

Appellant

- v –

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

Respondent

Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Rupert Jones

Hearing date(s): 20 December 2024

Mode of hearing: Video (CVP)

Representation:

Appellant: In person

Respondent: Denis Edwards, counsel instructed by the Government Legal Department

On appeal from:

Tribunal: The First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) (‘FTT’)

Tribunal Case No: SC304/22/00874

Tribunal Venue: Watford

Decision Date: 13 March 2023 (Statement of Reasons 3 July 2023)

Anonymity: The appellant in this case is anonymised in accordance with the practice of the Upper Tribunal approved in Adams v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Green (CSM) [2017] UKUT 9 (AAC), [2017] AACR 28.

SUMMARY OF DECISION

Personal independence payment – general - 41

The FTT did not err materially in deciding that the Appellant had made a second claim to Personal Independence Payment (“PIP”) on 29 July 2022 which had then been refused by the Respondent with the result that the period for the earlier award of PIP, based upon a first claim made in April 2021, was limited to 28 July 2022, the day before the second claim to PIP was made and from which time entitlement had been refused. The appeal to the UT was dismissed on the basis that fresh evidence was admitted in relation to events between October 2023 and May 2024 which occurred after the hearing before the FTT in March 2023. This established beyond doubt that the Appellant’s second claim to PIP, whether or not it had been validly made and properly completed by telephone on 29 July 2022, had been refused by the Respondent as from 29 July 2022. Therefore, the principle on avoiding overlapping benefit entitlement decisions applied as explained in GG v SSWP (PIP) [2019] UKUT 318 (AAC) and there was no material error of law in the FTT’s decision. The correct interpretation of Regulation 11(4) of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment… (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013 as to when a telephone claim to PIP is validly made or properly completed as opposed to being defective is reserved to an appeal where this is determinative of the outcome.

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