![[2025] UKUT 356 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Introduction
Introduction
This appeal is about a young boy who was aged 3 at the relevant date. To protect his privacy, I refer to him as Timothy (not his real name) and have changed any references to his name in documents in this appeal to that pseudonym. The appeal is brought on his behalf by his mother, who acts as his Appointee.
The issue raised by the appeal was whether Timothy qualified for the higher rate of the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) on the basis of the Severe Mental Impairment (SMI) rules.
The Appellant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal succeeds and so the First-tier Tribunal’s (FTT’s) decision on Timothy’s DLA appeal is set aside. It is not necessary to remit the case to a fresh FTT for re-hearing as there is sufficient evidence available for me, with the agreement of the parties, to substitute my own decision for that of the FTT. I therefore re-make the decision under appeal.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved an error of law. Under section 12(2)(a) and section 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Tribunals, Courts an
- Introduction
- The factual background
- The decision of the First-tier Tribunal
- The grant of permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal
- The Secretary of State’s submission on the appeal to the Upper Tribunal
- Subsequent developments
- Summary analysis
- Conclusions