[2025] UKUT 322 (AAC)

Appeal No. UA-2025-000092-PIP

In The Upper Tribunal
Administrative Appeals Chamber

Between:

MAH

Appellant

-v-

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Respondent

Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Church

Decided on consideration of the papers

Representation:

Appellant: Quazi Rahman, Brace Welfare Consultancy

Respondent: Sidra Rauf, Decision Making and Appeals (DMA) Leeds

On appeal from:

Tribunal: First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

Tribunal Case No.: SC242/23/07403

Digital Case No.: 1697311749672389

Tribunal Venue: Fox Court (remote oral hearing)

Decision Date: 25 June 2024

SUMMARY OF DECISION

41.1 Personal Independence Payment: general

1. This appeal is about the need for tribunalsto ensure that their findings of fact are grounded in evidence, to avoid the temptation to speculate about matters on which they have heard no evidence, and to make clear findings of fact about each matter that is necessary to determine the material issues in the appeal.

2. In this case the Tribunal should have stuck to hearing the evidence, assessing it critically, and making findings based on the evidence as it assessed it. The Tribunal fell into error when it strayed into speculating about whether the claimant and members of his family might adopt “traditional roles”, a matter on which it heard no evidence.

Please note that the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judge follow.

DECISION