Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 211 (AAC)

Fecha: 16-Jul-2024

E FITZPATRICK

E FITZPATRICK

JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

ON APPEAL FROM:

Tribunal: First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support)

Tribunal Case No: SC 337/23/00267

Tribunal Venue: Newcastle upon Tyne

Decision date: 19.5.23

Decision date: 16th July 2024

Decided on consideration of the papers

Representation:

Appellant: S Isaac, RBL (with assistance from CPAG Upper Tribunal Project)

Respondent: R Jagger (DWP Decision-Making and Appeals)

RULE 14 Order Pursuant to rule 14(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, it is prohibited for any person to disclose or publish any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant in these proceedings.

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Upper Tribunal Case No.UA-2023-001449-PIP

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER [2024] UKUT 211 (AAC)

Before: Ms E Fitzpatrick, Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Decision: The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (SC 337/23/00267) of 19.5.2023 involved the making of an error on a point of law.

Under section 12(2) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, I set aside the Tribunal’s decision and remit the appeal for re-hearing before the First-tier Tribunal. Directions for the re-hearing are at the end of the reasons for the decision.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

In brief, the appellant made a claim for PIP on 15/09/2022. A PIP2 questionnaire was received on 15/11/2022. The appellant attended a telephone assessment with a health professional on 10/01/2023. On 20/01/2023 a decision maker decided that he scored 4 points for the daily living activities and 0 points for the mobility activities and as such was not entitled to an award of PIP. Mr T requested a mandatory reconsideration and on 20/02/2023 a decision maker looked at the decision again but decided not to change it. The appellant lodged an appeal with HMCTS on 03/03/2023. The First-tier Tribunal heard the appeal on 19/05/2023. The FTT confirmed the decision of the Secretary of State, although it awarded 6 points for the daily living activities and 4 points for the mobility activities, this was still insufficient for an award of PIP. The appellant now appeals to the Upper Tribunal.