[2025] UKUT 153 (AAC)

Mr Kamara adopted Judge Butler’s observations regarding possible failings by the tribunal, placing reliance on the issues of the medicated soap as an aid, and the incorporation into the descriptors of the ‘acceptable standard’ condition in regulation 4 2(A).

He reminds me of the decision of Upper Tribunal Judge Clough in DE v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKUT 226 (AAC) at [63] where she described the test of an acceptable standard as being both subjective and objective, asking “Does an independent outsider consider the activity to be done to an acceptable standard and does the Appellant consider the activity is done to an acceptable standard?”

As to the aid, he argues that the soap is connected to the appellant’s impairment, in that it “assists in overcoming the consequences of a function impaired in the carrying out of that activity” per Upper Tribunal Judge Markus KC in AP v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2016 [2016] UKUT 0501 (AAC) at [33].(from now, AP) He describes the impaired function as an inability to wash herself so as to remove her body odour and submits that the acidic pH soap is closely connected with the act of washing; the use of other soap is less satisfactory.

He points out that her using public conveniences to wash parts of her body in addition to showering at home, shows that she does not feel she is washing to an acceptable standard. It must be understood, he says, that this is not a psychological problem, but a real problem that other people notice. Whether the test is subjective or objective she cannot wash to an acceptable standard.