[2025] UKUT 153 (AAC)

Mr Edwards sets out certain findings of fact from the SOR: the FTT accepted that, due to the Appellant’s condition of TMAU, Activity 9 “was one of the most significant problems”. It led to isolation; social engagement only occurred when accompanied by her daughter or a friend who understood the condition; the reaction of others could lead to “anxiety and panic attacks”.

He argues that the FTT erred in relation to their approach to engaging with others, and mobility. Had the Tribunal made inferences from the evidence about her mobility problems, they would have found the key to the difficulties caused by TMAU: she avoids situations where she will meet other people; if she cannot do that, she suffers overwhelming anxiety.

The FTT erred in failing to draw the only reasonable conclusion from this evidence,that the Appellant had such severe difficulties with this activity that the appropriate descriptor was 9(d), “Cannot engage with other people due to such engagement causing overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant”. That scores eight points, enough for an award at the standard rate.

He asked me to note that what the Appellant said about her difficulties engaging with others is consistent with what was being said in connection with mobility activity 1, but the FTT failed to consider the evidence in these respects as a whole, or draw any or any adequate inferences from the evidence as a whole.

Given that the support from the Respondent leads to an award of the mobility component of PIP at the enhanced rate and the daily living component at the standard rate, Mr Edwards submits that this is sufficient to dispose of the appeal in favour of the Appellant.

As to daily living activity 4 the Respondent’s position is that it is not a relevant activity for this appellant. The factual findings were that she has no difficulties with washing or bathing.

Whilst her need to shower three to four times per day was a manifestation of her condition, the evidence is consistent with this being motivated by her anxiety and distress arising from others’ reaction to her condition rather than anything associated with washing or bathing in itself.

The Appellant is able to wash and bathe “repeatedly”, as that term is defined in regulation 4(2A)(c): she can wash “as often as the activity being assessed is reasonably required to be completed”.

The Respondent does not accept that a low pH soap is an aid for washing or bathing for the purposes of activity 4: low pH soaps are readily available and may be used by people without any health condition.