![[2025] UKUT 356 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Summary analysis
Summary analysis
I agree with the detailed analysis of the Secretary of State’s representative in her written submission on the appeal, as summarised above.
I am accordingly satisfied that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law for those reasons. I therefore allow the Appellant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal and set aside (or cancel) the Tribunal’s decision.
I do not consider it necessary to remit the case for re-hearing before a fresh FTT. The Secretary of State’s representative is content for the Upper Tribunal to re-make the decision under appeal so as to make an award of the higher rate mobility component on the basis of the SMI rules for the period in issue.
The decision that the FTT should have made, and which is now substituted for the decision of the FTT, is as follows:
The Appellant’s appeal is allowed.
The decision made by the Secretary of State on 9 June 2023 as revised on 18 September 2023 is set aside.
The Appellant is entitled to the highest rate of the DLA care component and the higher rate of the DLA mobility component for the period from 26 October 2022 to 2 June 2024.
An award is made for the above closed period as there is a more recent award in place at the same rates covering the period from 3 June 2024 to 2 June 2027.
- 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