[2025] UKUT 296 (AAC)

The appellant appealed the Secretary of State’s decision of 13 March 2022 that she was not entitled to PIP with effect from 21 September 2021. The FTT dismissed her appeal on 6 February 2023. It awarded her 7 points under the PIP daily living activities, which was insufficient for any award to be made as a minimum of 8 points was required. The FTT did not award the appellant any points under daily living activity 9.

The FTT’s reasons for not awarding the appellant any points under daily living activity 9 were as follows:

“24.

It is important to emphasise that the type of engagement envisaged by this activity is engagement that is face-to-face. Nevertheless, as a starting point only, it is of some relevance to note that [the appellant] is a paid part-time employee……albeit…most of her engagement with those she helps is by telephone and, therefore, not face-to-face. As part of that job she speaks to people who are vulnerable. The nature of such a job is to support and encourage those who may themselves be reluctant to talk about their difficulties…..[the appellant] must build something of a relationship with others so as to try and help them. Albeit not face-to-face, the [appellant’s job role] is at its very essence one of social engagement. [Her] evidence made this clear. For example, she explained that one of those who she helped was known to be aggressive. [The appellant] spoke to her manager to gain guidance on how to manage difficult individuals and took that advice on board. Both [the appellant] and her manager were clearly of the view that dealing with difficult, aggressive people was something she was able to do, albeit while doing so on the telephone.

25.

However, although [the appellant] has a considerable capacity to engage with others by telephone, the key question for the tribunal was, could she, at the relevant time, also engage with other people face-to-face.

26.

The tribunal accepted that [the appellant] has a certain wariness of people she does not know, and of large groupings, but judged that her difficulties in this regard are not to the extent that she cannot engage socially face-to-face.

27.

[The appellant lives in] a small town with a range of shop sizes. She accepted that she shops in a good-sized [supermarket store in the town], rather than at one of the smaller stores in the town. She does this weekly, Just, for a moment, taking by itself the evidence she gave to the tribunal regarding these visits, it seemed to the tribunal that she was describing inter-personal action within the store in such a way that she was socially engaging face-to-face. She did not say that she did not like queues, but she was clearly able to go shopping on her own when other customers were present and would interact with them when spoken to. At the date of the decision, [the appellant] was also shopping in other shops in [the town], for example at the local pet shop.

28.

She struck the tribunal as someone who likes people. She visits family…and has friends and neighbours with whom she can sustain relationships. She will go to a café in [the town] with her friend….She will also meet neighbours to share meals…..This is all consistent with what the tribunal made of her evidence when she described her trips to the shops and how she managed with people when inside a store.

29.

There was other evidence in the case to support the impression that [the appellant] had given the tribunal in evidence. She visits her employer….specifically to meet colleagues face-to-face. Although she knows these colleagues, there would have been a time when she did not, and would have had to build the relationships she now has with them.”

In seeking permission to appeal from the First-tier Tribunal the appellant questioned the FTT’s description in paragraph 27 of its reasons of interaction with other people in the supermarket as being applicable to face-to-face engagement. She argued that she avoided people she knew and only interacted as needed to be polite, and she would use the self-service checkout where possible as she would get very anxious if she had to queue in case someone started talking to her. The appellant referred to the Upper Tribunal’s decision in RC, which had been cited to the FTT, and its view of the law that “[a] brief conversation with a stranger about the weather while waiting for a bus does not involve establishing a relationship in the normal sense of the word. Nor does buying a burger or an ice cream, although both involve reciprocal exchanges”.

The salaried judge in the First-tier Tribunal gave the appellant permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. In so doing he commented as follows:

“I would have set aside the decision on the basis of the third limb of social engagement appears not to have been dealt with but there is authority that a relationship can be very limited in time. Which approach should the tribunal take of the two raised?”

It was common ground before me that the ‘two approaches raised’ by the District Tribunal Judge is a reference to RC and Hickey, and that by the “third limb” the DTJ meant that the FTT’s decision did not deal with the appellant’s ability to “establish relationships” (see further on this below).