Kerry Underwood

SOCIAL SECURITY: PERSONAL INDEPENDENCE PAYMENT: UPPER TRIBUNAL CASES 2019/20

leave a comment »


Here I look at Upper Tribunal decisions, that is decisions on appeal, in relation to Social Security and Personal Independence Payments.

All of the information in all of these posts is taken directly from the Senior President of Tribunals’ Annual Report 2020, which is an invaluable and free resource dealing with all aspect of the work of tribunals as well as setting out these summaries of key cases.

The whole report can be accessed here.

Administrative Appeals Chamber: Social Security: Personal Independence Payment

CitationPartiesJurisdictionCommentary
[2019] UKUT 179 (AAC)JB v Secretary of State for Work and PensionsSocial SecurityThe Upper Tribunal decided two procedural issues in an appeal against the refusal of a Personal Independence Payment (“PIP”) claim. Firstly, the extent of the Registrar’s powers in the First-tier Tribunal when determining which papers should be included in the appeal bundle before the First-tier Tribunal and secondly the admissibility of an audio recording of a consultation with an Health Care Professional made covertly by the appellant and whether it should have been admitted by the First-tier Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal decided that in this case the Registrar had exceeded her powers and that the First-Tier Tribunal had been wrong to avoid the issue regarding the covert recording and transcript in its decision.
   
[2019] UKUT 270 (AAC)PA v Secretary of State for Work and PensionsSocial SecurityThe Upper Tribunal decided that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law in respect of daily living activity 2 (taking nutrition) in the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (“PIP”) Regulations 2013. It had made insufficient findings of fact to support its decision that the claimant didn’t require prompting to take nutrition, it misunderstood the proper meaning of “take nutrition”, it failed to consider regulation 4(2A) of the PIP Regulations in sufficient detail and the reasons for its decision were inadequate.  

[2019] UKUT 320 (AAC)DA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)Social SecurityThe Upper Tribunal decided that the First-tier Tribunal had applied the correct test and reached the inevitable conclusion that a bottle and sterilised water used to wash after going to the toilet was not an “aid” in respect of the definition of “aid or appliance” in the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 because the claimant had no impaired function relating to the activity of cleaning herself, and because the process was a preventative therapy rather than something which made it easier or possible for her to clean herself. It also stressed the importance of identifying the “impaired function” in order to apply that definition properly.  

[2020] UKUT 22 (AAC)TK v Secretary of State for Work and PensionsSocial SecurityThe Upper Tribunal considered the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 and decided that activity 3 can apply where a person needs assistance because of the nature of the tasks involved in therapy rather than because of a physical or mental impairment in performing the tasks. It considered the meaning and application of “limited by a person’s physical or mental condition” in section 78 Welfare Reform Act 2012. Furthermore activity 2 can apply where, due to lack of appetite, a person needs prompting to eat a sufficient quantity of food.    

Written by kerryunderwood

August 25, 2020 at 12:00 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: