The Upper Tribunal allowed a Personal Independence Payment appeal after finding multiple errors of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s reasoning. The case is important because it shows why observations about employment or driving cannot replace findings about the individual PIP activities.
What the Upper Tribunal decided
The First-tier Tribunal had confirmed a decision awarding no points for either daily living or mobility. Its statement of reasons repeatedly quoted the claimant’s evidence, stated the relevant law, copied the same general factual paragraphs into several activities and then accepted the healthcare professional’s conclusions without adequately explaining why the claimant’s contrary evidence was rejected.
Upper Tribunal Judge Stout held that the reasons were inadequate. Correctly setting out the legal test was not enough: the tribunal still had to make findings about the material evidence and explain how those findings answered each activity.
A request for a paper hearing does not end the fairness question
The claimant had requested that the appeal be decided on the papers. Nevertheless, the First-tier Tribunal was still required to decide whether it could determine the case fairly without an oral hearing and to give at least brief reasons. That was particularly important because it rejected the claimant’s account for most activities without giving her another opportunity to answer its concerns.
Work is not the same as social engagement
For daily living activity 9, the tribunal focused on the claimant’s ability to interact in her work with vulnerable children. It did not properly assess her evidence about engaging socially or distinguish interaction with children from interaction with unfamiliar adults. The Upper Tribunal confirmed that those distinctions may matter and must be addressed through findings rather than assumption.
Driving was not determinative of journey ability
For mobility activity 1, the tribunal relied heavily on the claimant driving an unadapted manual car. The Upper Tribunal held that it needed a holistic assessment and had failed to address her evidence concerning public transport. Driving may be relevant evidence, but it did not determine the planning-and-following-journeys activity by itself.
The outcome
The First-tier Tribunal decision was set aside. The case was sent to a completely different tribunal for a fresh oral hearing. The Upper Tribunal did not award PIP and expressly noted that the new tribunal could reach the same or a different outcome after making its own findings.
Black Sheep evidence lesson
A strong appeal schedule should deal with each disputed activity separately. For every activity, identify the claimant’s account, corroborating evidence, the reliability criteria—safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and within a reasonable time—and the exact conclusion requiring reasons. If driving or employment is relied upon, explain what the activity actually demonstrates and, just as importantly, what it does not demonstrate.