Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 198 (AAC)

Fecha: 10-Jul-2024

The chronology of the appeal

The chronology of the appeal

On 5 September 2021 the Appellant suffered an accident at work.

On 15 November 2021 the Appellant made a claim for PIP.

On 20 April 2022 a DWP decision-maker awarded the Appellant the standard rate of the PIP daily living component, scoring him two points each for daily living activities 1, 4, 5 and 9. The Appellant applied for a mandatory reconsideration.

On 6 June 2022 a decision-maker confirmed the decision of 20 April 2022. The Appellant lodged an appeal with the FTT.

On 6 October 2022 a FTT adjourned a face-to-face hearing as the Appellant did not attend.

10.

On 6 December 2022 a FTT again adjourned a face-to-face hearing as the Appellant did not attend. The adjournment notice included the following observation directed to the Appellant:

You were notified in the previous Adjournment Notice dated 06/10/2022 that the Tribunal has the power to increase or decrease any award. You have been awarded the daily living component at the standard rate. This means that at your appeal hearing you may lose this benefit or it might be increased or stay the same. You may consider it appropriate to seek advice from a welfare rights organisation who can advise you on this.

11.

On 4 April 2023 the FTT held a further hearing. The Appellant again failed to attend. The FTT decided to proceed in his absence. The FTT decided that the Appellant did not meet the 3-month initial qualifying period for PIP. The FTT accordingly refused the appeal and set aside the DWP’s decision dated 20 April 2022 that had awarded the Appellant PIP.

12.

In its statement of reasons the FTT summarised the issue as follows:

[The Appellant] faced the obstacle of not meeting the qualifying period for PIP, which requires disabilities to have lasted for at least 3 months before a claim is made. Ultimately, the Tribunal determined it could not award him any PIP points because his claim was not valid from the outset. The decision centered on whether [the Appellant] properly qualified for PIP and, if so, whether his restrictions entitled him to additional points under PIP criteria.

13.

The FTT resolved this issue in the following way:

34.

The Tribunal examined the appeal bundle evidence, including the Appellant's PIP2 form detailing his claimed activity restrictions. However, it ultimately found the Appellant did not meet the qualifying period for PIP, having claimed less than 3 months after his work accident.

35.

Therefore, we could not award him any PIP points. The Tribunal set aside the Secretary of State's award decision, finding the Appellant was not entitled to PIP from the outset. It made this effective from the hearing date, rather than originally, to avoid unfairly penalizing the Appellant for the Secretary of State's oversight on the qualifying period. [The presenting officer], for the Respondent, confirmed this was both reasonable and fair.

14.

The FTT further explained its reasoning as follows:

The Qualifying Period Issue

39.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant did not meet the qualifying period to make his PIP claim.

40.

PIP rules state that the first date a claim can be made is 3 months after the disability issues began. This 3-month period is called the qualifying period.

41.

The Appellant's evidence was that his conditions arose after an accident at work on 5^th September 2021. Therefore, the first date he could claim PIP was 3 months after that accident, on 5th December 2021.

42.

However, the Appellant made his claim earlier, on 15th November 2021, just 2 months after the accident. By claiming on 15th November 2021, he did not satisfy the qualifying period requirement.

43.

Given this failure to meet the qualifying period, the Tribunal ultimately determined it could not properly award the Appellant any PIP points for his claimed activities.