[2025] UKUT 130 (AAC)

The appellant was awarded universal credit from 29 September 2020. In November 2021 he provided a ‘fit note’ to the Secretary of State in support of his declaration that he had the health condition of hearing loss. This led to a determination that the appellant did not have limited capability for work. He was found by the Secretary of State’s decision maker, on 19 May 2022, to score ‘0’ points under the physical and mental health descriptors in Schedule 6 to the UC Regs.

Although the appellant could not qualify for a limited capability for work element in his universal credit award under section 12(2)(a) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, as the ‘LCW element’ had been abolished with effect from 3 April 2017, being found to have limited capability remains of importance as it affects both which work requirements can be imposed on the claimant (per section 21(1)(a) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and (if applicable) the level or work allowance (under regulation 22 of the UC Regs).

The appellant appealed the decision that he did not have limited capability for work to the First-tier Tribunal (“the FTT”). The FTT dismissed his appeal on 10 October 2023, finding the appellant scored only 6 points under descriptor 16(c) in Schedule 6 to the UC Regs. The FTT accepted that the appellant had hearing loss but found the impact of the hearing loss was not sufficient to meet the criteria for an award.

The relevant parts of the FTT’s reasons read as follows:

“Navigation.

10.

On his claim form the appellant stated that he could get around safely on his own. At the hearing he told us he was able to read a map. He gave us an example where he had printed off a map to drive to Hoxton from his home in Slough. He did say that when he was walking on pavements he sometimes didn't hear people behind him because of his hearing loss but he was usually able to move out of the way without any incident. We concluded that despite his hearing loss, he was able to navigate around unfamiliar surroundings without being accompanied by another person. We awarded no points……

Coping with social engagement.

15.

On his claim form the appellant said his ability to meet people he knew varied and he could not meet people he did not know without feeling too anxious or scared. He explained this was due to his difficulty in understanding others and explaining himself. This made it very difficult for him to mix with other people.

16.

We explored this with the appellant at the hearing. He told us that since 2012 he has had no contact with his family following his divorce. He said he felt he couldn't swim or play football with friends because he needed to be able to listen to them. He said he has not attempted to make any contact with the deaf community. He said he had decided he didn't want to attend social meetings or the mosque because he knows he won't understand everything that is going on. He said if 10 or 11 people are talking then it's very hard for him to follow the conversation. He said if there is complete silence then he can understand people. We concluded that his hearing problems had made him anxious about socialising with strangers. We noticed that he did have some social engagement with his former pupils, their parents and fellow students on his master’s course. However, we accepted his evidence that for most of the time he found it difficult to relate to other people because of his hearing loss. We awarded points under 16C accordingly.

Schedule 9 (4)

17.

We considered the appellant’s position in relation to the risk to himself or another person were he to be found capable of work or work-related activity. As noted above we found that the appellant was able to read a simple message, was able to convey simple and complex information and there was nothing to suggest that he would be at risk in the workplace.”