![[2025] UKUT 332 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The facts of TR’s case and the First-tier Tribunal’s decision
The facts of TR’s case and the First-tier Tribunal’s decision
TR’s case concerns her entitlement to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) under sections 78 and 79 of the Social Security Act 1998 (“SSA 1998”) and the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/377) (“the PIP Regulations”).
TR first made a claim to PIP in 2015. On that occasion she was awarded 2 points in relation to daily living activities. The decision was not revised on mandatory reconsideration and was upheld by the First-tier Tribunal on appeal.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeals. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal in both appeals involved an error of law. Under section 12(2) (a), (b)(i) and (3) of the Tribunals
- These Directions may be supplemented by later directions by a Tribunal Caseworker, Tribunal Registrar or Judge in the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal
- The structure of our decision is as follows
- The facts of TR’s case and the First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The facts of GD’s case and the First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The grounds of appeal in both cases and the parties’ positions
- Relevant legislative provisions
- The legal framework
- “Any grounds” revision requests and appeals
- “Any time” revision requests and appeals
- The consequences of our interpretation
- Previous case law
- The earlier legislation
- Wood v SSWP
- R (IS) 15/04
- R (IB) 2/04
- CJ and SG v SSWP
- PH and SM v SSWP
- The post PH and SM v SSWP decisions
- What is required in order to trigger the right of appeal to the Tribunal in cases to which mandatory reconsideration applies
- Conclusion on the issues of principle
- Disposal in TR’s case
- Conclusions