Introduction

The case of MM and BJ v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ([2016] UKUT 490 (AAC)) presents a pivotal interpretation of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) scheme, specifically concerning the daily living activity of Taking Nutrition. The appellants, MM and BJ, contested the refusal of PIP based on their perceived limitations in taking nutrition due to various health conditions. The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) deliberated on whether the activity of taking nutrition encompasses dietary choices or the nutritional quality of food, ultimately setting a significant precedent in the assessment of PIP claims.

Summary of the Judgment

Upper Tribunal Judge Wright dismissed both appeals by MM and BJ, upholding the decisions of the First-tier Tribunals. The central issue revolved around the interpretation of Activity 2: Taking Nutrition within the PIP framework. The Judge concluded that taking nutrition pertains solely to the physical acts of eating and drinking—such as cutting food, conveying it to the mouth, chewing, and swallowing—without considering the nutritional quality of the food consumed. Consequently, neither appellant met the descriptors required for an enhanced points score under this activity, leading to the denial of the standard rate of the daily living component of PIP.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references the case SA v SSWP ([2015] UKUT 512 (AAC)), where the Upper Tribunal addressed the need for encouragement to eat to an acceptable standard. In SA, the tribunal grappled with whether appetite loss and the necessity of prompting for proper eating qualified under taking nutrition. Judge Wright critically assessed this precedent, distinguishing the current case's focus strictly on the mechanical aspects of eating rather than the qualitative aspects of nutrition.

Legal Reasoning

The Judge meticulously parsed the statutory language of the PIP Regulations, emphasizing that "take nutrition" in Schedule 1 of the Regulations is confined to the acts of cutting, conveying, chewing, and swallowing food or drink. The term nutrition does not extend to the quality or healthiness of the diet. This interpretation aligns with the definitions provided in Part 1 of Schedule 1, which avoids inferring qualitative dietary requirements into Activity 2. Furthermore, the Judge dismissed arguments that sought to integrate a qualitative assessment of diet into the evaluation, maintaining that such considerations fall outside the statutory parameters of Activity 2 and are instead potentially relevant to other activities, such as preparing food.

Impact

This judgment clarifies the scope of Activity 2: Taking Nutrition within the PIP scheme, establishing that assessments should focus on the claimant's ability to perform the physical acts associated with eating and drinking rather than the nutritional adequacy of their diet. This interpretation narrows the criteria for qualifying under taking nutrition, potentially limiting the number of claimants who may receive additional points based on dietary quality. Future cases will reference this decision to understand that PIP assessments under Activity 2 do not account for the healthiness of the food consumed, thereby refining the boundaries of disability assessments within the PIP framework.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Personal Independence Payment (PIP)

PIP is a welfare benefit in the UK designed to help individuals with long-term health conditions or disabilities cover some of the extra costs they may face. It comprises two components: Daily Living and Mobility, each with standard and enhanced rates based on the level of support needed.

Activity 2: Taking Nutrition

Under the PIP Regulations, Activity 2 assesses the ability to eat and drink independently. It includes actions like cutting food, conveying it to the mouth, chewing, and swallowing, without considering what is being eaten.

Descriptors and Points System

The PIP assessment uses descriptors to determine the level of support required. Each descriptor corresponds to a certain number of points, which cumulatively decide the payment rate. For Activity 2, descriptors range from 0 points (no support needed) to 10 points (cannot eat or drink without assistance).

Conclusion

The Upper Tribunal's decision in MM and BJ v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions provides a definitive interpretation of Activity 2: Taking Nutrition within the PIP scheme. By restricting the assessment to the physical aspects of eating and drinking, the judgment delineates the boundaries of disability assessments, ensuring clarity and consistency in future PIP evaluations. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory definitions, reinforcing that qualitative aspects of nutrition do not influence the determination of eligibility under Activity 2. Consequently, claimants and legal practitioners must focus on the mechanical abilities related to eating and drinking when preparing and contesting PIP claims.