![[2024] UKUT 283 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
E FITZPATRICK
E FITZPATRICK
JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
ON APPEAL FROM:
Tribunal: First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support)
Tribunal Case No: 1672-3327-7286-3892
Tribunal Venue: Southampton
Decision date: 19.12.23
Decision date: 29th August 2024
Decided on consideration of the papers
Representation
Written submissions on behalf of appellant, Astraea Linskills solicitors.
Written submissions on behalf of the respondent, DMS, L Ropel.
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-2024-000378-PIP
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER ANCN: [2024] UKUT 283 (AAC)
Before: Ms E Fitzpatrick, Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Decision: The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (1672-3327-7286-3892) of 19.12.2023 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 Personal Independence Payment (PIP) via telephone on 20/06/2022. A PIP2 questionnaire was completed on 24/07/2022. Ms M attended a Health Care Professional (HCP) consultation on 06/10/2022. The Decision Maker made a decision on 25/10/2022 that the appellant scored 4 points for the daily living descriptor 9(c) and 0 points for the mobility component. Thus, she was not entitled to any rate of PIP. A Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) was undertaken on 30/11/2022, resulting in no change to the decision. This decision was appealed by the appellant to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT). The appeal was allowed by the FTT on 19th December 2023 and the decision made by the Secretary of State on 25/10/2022 was set aside. The FTT awarded the appellant 4 points for daily living descriptor 9(c) and 8 points for mobility descriptor 1(c). Thus, Ms M was entitled to the standard rate of the mobility component. As per the appellant’s request written reasons were issued to her on 09/02/2024.The appellant applied for permission to appeal the FTT decision of 19/12/2023, permission to appeal was refused by the DTJ on 07/03/2024. The appellant then applied to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal, this was granted by me on 22/04/2024.