[2025] UKUT 252 (AAC)

At the stage of the Secretary of State made the above supportive submission, the appellant was unrepresented, and he was content for the appeal to be decided on the basis of the Secretary of State’s submission.

However, I was not content to do so and directed an oral hearing of the appeal, for these reasons:

“2.

Having read the submissions on the appeal, I am not satisfied they grapple fully with the grounds on which permission was granted by the First-tier Tribunal. Most particularly, the submissions do not address whether, as a matter of law, resting before a PIP activity is undertaken falls (or not) to be taken into account under regulation 4(2A)(d) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (“the PIP Regs”). In other words, is the rest which may be needed before starting to undertake an activity part of the assessment of whether the claimant can satisfy (or carry out an activity) a PIP descriptor within a reasonable period of time? The First-tier Tribunal expressly excluded this ‘before’ time from counting under regulation 4(2A)(d), and this appeal (at least very arguably) needs to answer whether it was correct to do so. I cannot at present identify any clear argument from either party on this issue.

3.

The Upper Tribunal’s decisions in PM v SSWP (PIP) [2017] UKUT 154 (AAC), CE v SSWP (PIP) [2015] UKUT 643 (AAC) and TR v SSWP (PIP) [2015] UKUT 626 (AAC); [2016] AACR 23 may have some relevance to the issue described above.”