[2025] UKUT 020 (AAC)

Mr Edwards opposed the appeal on behalf of the Respondent. He relied on the Respondent’s written submission filed on 9 July 2024.

He did so primarily on the basis that events subsequent to the FTT Decision proved beyond doubt that there had been a second valid claim to PIP made by the Appellant on 29 July 2022 which had subsequently been completed, fully determined and refused on 23 February 2024. Thus, entitlement to PIP had been refused from 29 July 2022. Therefore, the two grounds of appeal became irrelevant and the FTT did not err materially in deciding there had been a second claim to PIP on 29 July 2022 which had been refused and hence brought to an end the Appellant’s entitlement to PIP on 28 July 2022.

In support of this argument, he sought to admit fresh evidence on the appeal before the UT, namely the documents that established the following sequence of undisputed events which took place subsequent to the FTT’s decision in March 2023.

On 3 October 2023, the Respondent had looked again at its decision not to carry on with the Appellant’s PIP claim begun on 29 July 2022 and decided there were good reasons for the Appellant not filling in and returning the claim form (or PIP2 questionnaire). Thereafter, in November 2023, the Appellant completed a claim form in respect of this second claim to PIP. On 23 February 2024 the Respondent considered the claim and rejected it entirely (in respect of daily living and mobility components of PIP from 29 July 2022). On 14 May 2024 the Respondent had confirmed its decision not to award the Appellant PIP from 29 July 2022 following a mandatory reconsideration.

Mr Edwards did also address the two grounds of appeal in the alternative.