[2025] UKUT 252 (AAC)

Appeal No. UA-2024-000516-PIP

Between:

RH

Appellant

- v -

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Respondent

Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Wright

Representation:

Appellant: Imogen Marchant, Free Representation Unit

Respondent: Denis Edwards of counsel

On appeal from:

Tribunal: First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

Tribunal Case No: SC140/23/00419

Tribunal Venue: Cambridge

Decision Date: 13 June 2023

SUMMARY OF DECISION

This decision is about whether the FTT erred in law in: (i) ruling out rest before an activity is undertaken in deciding whether the descriptors under an activity were completed within a reasonable time period (per regulation 4(2A)(d) of the PIP Regs); and (ii) failing to provide adequate reasons for whether the appellant could satisfy relevant descriptors repeatedly (per regulation 4(2A)(c) of the PIP Regs). The Upper Tribunal decides that resting before carrying out an activity is not relevant to whether the descriptors under the activity can be completed within a reasonable time period. However, the FTT erred in law in not providing an adequate explanation for why the need it apparently found the appellant had to rest after carrying out PIP activities and before repeating them did not assist the appellant under regulation 4(2A)(c).

KEYWORD NAME (Keyword Number) 41 (Personal independence payment - general)

Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judges follow.

DECISION