[2024] UKUT 211 (AAC)

The appellant’s grounds of appeal as set out by his representative are twofold. Firstly, it is argued in relation to Activity 9, Engaging with other people face to face, insufficient findings were made by the FTT as to who needed to give the prompting accepted as needed. Secondly, it was submitted there was inadequate consideration of risk by the FTT when considering Activity 5, Managing toilet needs or incontinence, which was also inconsistent with the FTT’s findings on the same issue in the context of Activity 4 Washing and bathing.

I granted permission to appeal on 20^th November 2023. The respondent has forwarded a submission supporting the appeal on the second ground referred to above. I have decided this case on the papers as I consider I have sufficient information to do so fairly, bearing in mind the overriding objective. I also note this is an appeal supported by the respondent, albeit solely on the second ground of appeal. I have provided full reasons as I consider it is merited in this case and it may be helpful in assisting Tribunals with the application of regulation 4 (2A) of the Social Security (PIP) Regulations 2013 in particular (a) safely and how this is relevant to the consideration of regulation 7 of the 2013 Regulations, in particular what is now commonly referred to as the “50% rule” in regulation 7(1)(a).