[2025] UKUT 020 (AAC)

The first ground of appeal on which I granted permission to appeal was as follows:

“The FTT failed to give adequate reasons and that there was no evidence to support the findings at para 44 of the SOR that the Applicant: a) had made a second claim to PIP in a telephone call on 29 July 2022; and b) that the SSWP had made a formal decision refusing any PIP claim (that such a decision was in existence).”

The Appellant adopted the observations set out in my decision granting permission to appeal. He submitted that when making its decision and giving its reasons at [44] of the SOR for finding that the award of PIP should cease on 28 July 2022, the only material that was before the FTT was a written submission in the Respondent’s documents which stated:

The Appellant argued that there was no or insufficient evidence before the FTT that an actual claim to PIP was made by him and that the Respondent had actually made any decision refusing the claim. He submitted that there was no evidence which was before the FTT as to what he told DWP on that telephone call on 29 July 2022. For example, there was no evidence as to whether he said he was not proceeding with a second PIP claim and there might be a question about: (a) what he told them – whether he wanted the PIP2 questionnaire in case he decided to make a claim or whether he said he wanted to make a new claim; and (b) whether he contacted the DWP about not proceeding with this second claim (so effectively withdrew his claim so far as it is concerned).

He relied on my observation in granting permission that it might be expected that the DWP follows up any failure to return a PIP2 questionnaire before making a negative determination that a person is not entitled to the relevant component (see reg 8(3) of the 2013 PIP regulations for the negative determination requirement). There is no evidence as to whether the Appellant might have received a chasing letter about his new claim to PIP, or he might have simply received a determination that he was not entitled.

He also relied on my observation that it may be expected that the Respondent could and should have provided to the FTT the correspondence it sent after it said the second PIP claim was made, to see what happened. Of course, it may not make much difference if the Appellant did make a valid claim by telephone and the Respondent made a valid negative determination under Regulation 8(3) of the Social Security (Personal Independent Payment) Regulations 2013.  If DWP did not notify the Appellant of the outcome of his second PIP claim, then there might also be an argument about whether his time to appeal against it started – see reg 51 of the Universal Credit etc (Decisions & Appeals) regs 2013. However, there was no evidence before the FTT as to whether a valid claim was made and valid negative determination also made.

The Appellant submitted that there was no documentary or other evidence before the FTT on any of the relevant matters relating to the second claim and its determination and it erred in relying on the two sentences contained in the Respondent’s written submission.