![[2025] UKUT 001 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
An outline of what is agreed and what is not agreed between the parties
An outline of what is agreed and what is not agreed between the parties
It is indisputable that the claimant made three claims to the DWP for PIP in 2017, 2018 and 2020, each of which was unsuccessful. What is not agreed between the parties is the scope of the claimant’s subsequent FTT appeal in 2021 – was it solely concerned with her appeal against the (first) 2017 disallowance (as the Secretary of State argues) or were all three disallowed claims within scope of the appeal (as the claimant contends)?
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal by the Secretary of State. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal made on 30 December 2021 under file number SC242/21/02922 was made in error
- Introduction
- Preliminaries
- An outline of what is agreed and what is not agreed between the parties
- A summary of the parties’ positions
- The chronology of the three PIP claims in more detail
- The 2018 claim
- The 2020 claim
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision in 2021
- The starting point
- The claimant’s route to the First-tier Tribunal
- Provisional conclusion on the decision of the First-tier Tribunal
- The official error issue
- Must a request expressly or implicitly identify official error as a ground for revision?
- The DWP’s decision on the 2018 claim and official error
- The DWP’s decision on the 2020 claim and official error
- The notification issue
- Conclusions