[2025] UKUT 348 (AAC)

The Appellant (to whom I shall refer as the “claimant”) claimed a Personal Independence Payment (“PIP”) on 2 January 2015. On 19 May 2015 she was awarded a PIP from 2 January 2015 until 10 March 2018 with the daily living component at the standard rate but without the mobility component at either rate. Following an award review, that award was superseded and replaced with an award of a PIP with both components each at the standard rate from 7 September 2017 until 6 August 2021, an award that was later extended to 6 May 2022 due to the Covid pandemic. On 8 June 2021 the claimant advised of a change of circumstances (a deterioration in her health condition) which led to an unplanned review of her award. The claimant completed an Award Review form and attended a face-to-face assessment with a healthcare professional, and upon review the claimant was awarded PIP with both components at the standard rate from 10 April 2023 to 20 February 2027 (the “SoS Decision”). The claimant considered that that award was insufficient to reflect the difficulties she experienced and requested a mandatory consideration of the SoS Decision. However, the SoS Decision was confirmed on mandatory reconsideration. The claimant then appealed the SoS Decision to the First-tier Tribunal.

On 2 April 2024 a three-member panel of the First-tier Tribunal convened at Wakefield Civil Justice Centre to hear the claimant’s appeal (the “Tribunal”). Having heard evidence and argument, the Tribunal dismissed the claimant’s appeal and confirmed the SoS Decision (the “FtT Decision”). The claimant requested a statement of reasons for the FtT Decision and the record of proceedings for her hearing. A statement of reasons was provided on 13 May 2024. Unfortunately, the audio recording of the hearing that was provided was incomplete, covering only the first 45 minutes of the hearing.

On 26 June 2024 the claimant’s representative applied to the First-tier Tribunal for the setting aside of the FtT Decision on the grounds of a procedural error, namely the failure to provide a full record of proceedings. On 9 September 2024 a judge of the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the application for set aside. The judge expressed regret that the audio recording of the hearing was incomplete but noted that the tribunal judge who heard the appeal had prepared a detailed and full written note of the proceedings, and said that this had enabled him to produce a statement of reasons for the FtT Decision. The judge decided that it would not be proportionate to set aside the FtT Decision since a detailed statement of reasons had been prepared. The judge directed that the judge’s written reasons should stand as the record of proceedings.