[2025] UKUT 332 (AAC)

Applying those principles to TR’s case, there is no doubt that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear her appeal as a result of the Secretary of State having considered an application for revision on grounds of “official error”. It should, however, have considered it on a full merits basis, albeit subject as usual to section 12(8)(a) and (b) of the SSA 1998 so that the Tribunal need not consider any issue not raised by the appeal and must not take into account any circumstances not obtaining at the time of the original section 8 decision of 26 May 2017 (save to the extent that they shed light on the position at that time).

Mr Skinner for the Secretary of State sought to argue that in TR’s case the Tribunal’s error in not considering her appeal on its full merits was not material because (we summarise) she is very unlikely to secure sufficient points to entitle her to PIP. However, we do not consider that we are in a position to make that decision. We are not in the situation that we would be if this had been a ‘standard’ appeal where the Tribunal considered the full merits of the case and it is apparent that the issue on which the appeal succeeds will not be sufficient to make a difference to the claimant’s entitlement to PIP. In this case, TR has not yet had the benefit of a full merits appeal to the Tribunal. She is entitled to that and we therefore set the decision of the previous Tribunal aside and remit it accordingly.