Introduction

Hickey v. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ([2018] EWCA Civ 851) is a pivotal case adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on April 20, 2018. The appellant, Mrs. Hickey, contested the decision of the respondent, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SSWP), which denied her entitlement to the daily living component of a Personal Independence Payment (PIP). The crux of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of descriptors related to social support and prompting under the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013.

This case not only delves into the nuanced distinctions between "prompting" and "social support" within the PIP framework but also underscores the procedural intricacies involved in appellate proceedings.

Summary of the Judgment

Mrs. Hickey was initially denied PIP by the respondent, leading her to appeal through various tribunals—the First-tier Tribunal (FTT), Upper Tribunal (UT), and ultimately the Court of Appeal. The primary legal contention centered on whether the support Mrs. Hickey received from her friend, Sharron, qualified as "prompting" (descriptor 9(b)) or "social support" (descriptor 9(c)) under the PIP regulations. The FTT and UT upheld the decision that Mrs. Hickey's needs were met by prompting rather than social support. The Court of Appeal affirmed these findings, emphasizing procedural adherence and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the original descriptors assigned.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced previous cases to elucidate the distinction between "prompting" and "social support." Notable among these were:

• SL v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKUT 0147 (AAC): Addressed the breadth of "social support" beyond professional intervention.
• CPIP/1861/2015 and CSPIP/203/2015: Explored the qualitative differences and necessity for trained support providers.
• The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MMcK [2017] CSIH 57: Clarified that "prompting" and "social support" are not mutually exclusive and can overlap.

These precedents collectively reinforced the judiciary's approach to interpreting PIP descriptors, ensuring consistency and fairness in assessments.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously examined whether Mrs. Hickey's support from Sharron transcended "prompting" to constitute "social support." "Prompting" was defined as "reminding, encouraging or explaining," while "social support" required assistance from someone "trained or experienced in assisting people to engage in social situations."

The court concluded that the evidence did not substantiate that Sharron possessed the requisite training or experience to elevate her support beyond prompting. Additionally, the need for contemporaneity—support provided at the time of social engagement—was not met, further disqualifying the support as "social support."

Procedurally, the appellant's late introduction of new grounds of appeal without prior permission undermined her position, leading the court to prioritize established procedures over newly presented arguments.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future PIP assessments and appeals:

• Clarification of Descriptors: The court reinforced the clear demarcation between "prompting" and "social support," guiding assessors in accurately categorizing support types.
• Training and Experience Requirements: Only support from individuals with demonstrable training or experience can qualify as "social support," preventing subjective interpretations.
• Procedural Adherence: Emphasized the necessity for appellants to present all grounds of appeal promptly and in accordance with procedural rules.

Consequently, claimants and legal practitioners must ensure comprehensive and timely presentation of evidence and arguments to align with established legal standards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Hickey v. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions judgment serves as a critical reference point in the interpretation of PIP regulations, particularly in distinguishing between "prompting" and "social support." By affirming that only support from trained or experienced individuals qualifies as "social support," the court provides clear guidelines for both assessors and claimants. Additionally, the emphasis on procedural correctness in appeals underscores the importance of timely and well-founded presentation of claims.

This case underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that benefits assessments are both fair and consistent, ultimately safeguarding the interests of claimants while maintaining the integrity of the welfare system.