[2025] UKUT 252 (AAC)

The FTT upheld the Secretary of State’s decision of 8 January 2023 on 13 November 2023. It found the appellant only scored 2 points under daily living descriptor 5b (managing toilet needs) because he needed an aid or appliance to be able to manage his toilet needs. The appellant did not score any points under the mobility activities. The material parts of the FTT’s Decision Notice read as follows:

“5.

The Tribunal has read the papers and heard oral evidence from the Appellant via the telephone link. The Tribunal is aware that the Appellant's personal circumstances have changed, though his disabilities continue as before due to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. The Tribunal must consider his situation before the change, though he has confirmed that his routine has changed little since then.

6.

The evidence indicates that the Appellant can carry out the various activities, though will need to rest afterwards and before repeating them. The Appellant urges the Tribunal to consider the cumulative effect of his symptoms, because his need to rest means that he cannot fill his day with activities. The PIP Regulations provide that each activity must be carried out safely, repeatedly (when reasonably required), and within a reasonable time period. The evidence indicates that he can do this for each activity, and for more than 50% of the time. The appeal must therefore be dismissed.”

In its later statement of reasons for the decision the FTT said the following of relevance to the two issues before the Upper Tribunal on this appeal:

“3.

The Appellant asked for a Mandatory Reconsideration on 05/02/2023 by completing Form CRMR1, (page 57 to 62 ) He did not provide any further evidence. The basis of his disagreement was that he can only undertake 20 minutes of activity, and on a bad day he requires 30 minutes rest both before and afterwards, meaning that any activity takes 80 minutes. This is more than any other person would take. The Mandatory Reconsideration Notice was sent on 28/03 /2023 (page 63 to 67) which simply confirmed the decision, while acknowledging his restrictions.

4.

[The appellant’s] grounds for appeal are that he does not agree that he deserves 0 points because he is unable to carry out daily tasks repeatedly and in a reasonable time (as often as he used to do), that he has 5 bad days each week when he needs to rest for 30 minutes before and also after each 20 minutes of activity, which is twice as long as a person without his condition would take, and that this leads to cumulative fatigue.

20.

In this case, it was relevant to see what changes had occurred during the period eg seeking to engage with people online, and the subsequent effect upon his daily life eg moving to live as part of a new enlarged family in a different county, some 83 miles away. From his evidence to the Tribunal it is apparent that at the time of the decision he had formed a relationship with his new partner, and also met her children. This makes his suggestion that he was unable, due to fatigue and anxiety, to perform any daily task, less credible.

21.

He has been receiving the same level of medication for 6 years, which indicates that it is effective. He has not seen a specialist for several years. He accepts that he can cook and take nutrition - his diary indicates that he can cook and then eat, which is likely to take more than 20 minutes. He takes the same medication daily, and there is no reason for him to require prompting, or a dosette box - which he says he prepares himself. He can shower independently, and also dress himself. There is no evidence to support his claim that he needs to rest for so long after carrying out a task, so the Tribunal must consider whether his evidence is credible or not.

22.

Resting before carrying out a task is not part of that task, and no reason has been advanced why this is necessary. At the time of the claim he had moved to look after his mother, though he has said that they each cooked separately and independently. The Tribunal finds these two statements to be contradictory. He can communicate and also read to the standard required for the benefit, as shown by his online dating, and also by the daily record which refers to the time after he had moved to be part of a couple. This also extends to social engagement, there being no suggestion that he has required prompting or support to do this. He does suggest that at times he is too fatigued to understand money or manage his budget- his evidence is of going to the local shop several times a week and there is no indication of debts.

23.

He accepts that he can plan a journey, but says he cannot then follow the route. However, he can travel by public transport, on his own, and there is no suggestion of difficulty in moving to a new area. He has retained his Driving Licence, and while he does not have a car was able to hire one . He was walking for 15 minutes to visit his son, at the time when they both lived in Southend. If his evidence is to be believed, the very act of making the journey would negate the reason for it, because he would be too tired to do anything when he got there.

24.

[The appellant’s] suggestion of having to rest would make all of the activities unrepeatable and is inconsistent with his change of personal circumstances, which was occurring at the same time

25.

The Tribunal considered all the evidence, but in particular the Appellant’s oral evidence, which was given clearly and without hesitation. He spoke to the Tribunal for over one hour with no signs of fatigue.

The Decision

27.

The Tribunal agrees with the points awarded for the use of the stoma bag to assist his toilet needs. The Tribunal found no other points to award. The appeal was dismissed.”