[2024] UKUT 271 (AAC)

Although the FTT is entitled to afford weight to whatever evidence it chooses, where there is conflicting evidence, it must in the first instance explore and consider it in a holistic manner and provide sufficient reasons explaining why it preferred the evidence that it has. In this appeal the FTT has not done that. There is a lack of reference to the medical evidence which demonstrates the long-standing nature of the claimant’s health conditions. For the reasons set out above the FTT have failed to give adequate reasons, making it difficult for the claimant and the Upper Tribunal to know whether the FTT applied the correct legal tests in assessing the evidence, making its findings of fact, and arriving at its decision.

Given the nature of the claimant’s medical conditions which could impact on a number of the activities for both mobility and daily living, I consider the errors of law identified above are material as they may impact on the appellant qualifying for an award of either or both components of PIP.For the purposes of completeness,I note the claimant was awarded the standard rate of the daily living component and the enhanced rate of the mobility component of PIP from 25/01/2024 to 23/04/2027.

I find that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law as set out above. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision is set aside.

The appellant did not object to the Secretary of State’s invitation to the Upper Tribunal to remit her case to the First-tier Tribunal for re-hearing and given further findings of fact are required, it is appropriate to remit the case back to the FTT. As a matter of law, the next tribunal cannot, in its reasoning, take into account the findings of fact or conclusions of the tribunal whose decision I have set aside. The undetermined grounds of appeal are just that – undetermined.

Although I am setting aside the previous Tribunal’s decision, I am making no finding, nor indeed expressing any view, on whether the appellant is entitled to PIP (and, if so, which component(s) and at what rate(s)). That is a matter for the judgment of the new Tribunal. That new Tribunal must review all the relevant evidence and make its own findings of fact.