![[2025] UKUT 153 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Analysis
Analysis
The FTT found that the appellant had no difficulties washing and bathing; her problems were in other areas. In considering whether that is correct given Mr Kamara’s arguments, I have considered the terms of the Activity, but I have also stepped back and looked at it as but one element in the wider PIP scheme.
The activities upon which PIP is formulated are the tasks of daily life. The package of descriptors provides a framework within which to explore the various practical difficulties claimants may have, and thus calibrate their overall level of disability; its purpose is geared towards that global goal, and an apparently aberrant result in respect of one activity should not affect that.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal and remake the decision
- Factual background
- Legal framework
- “aided” means with
- “bathe” includes get into or out of an unadapted bath or shower
- Schedule 1 activities as relevant before the Upper Tribunal Daily Living
- “Assessing whether you were able to wash and bathe to an acceptable standard, including other point-scoring descriptors within this activity: The tribunal decided you scored descriptor 4.a (0 points)
- Daily living
- Mobility
- The parties’ submissions before me
- The appellant
- The respondent
- Analysis
- What is Activity 4 assessing?
- Applying this within the descriptors
- My conclusions as to Activity 4
- Soap as an aid?
- omitted
- Conclusions