Introduction

The case of SL v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ([2016] UKUT 147 (AAC)) marks a significant development in the interpretation of 'social support' within the framework of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP). This commentary examines the Upper Tribunal's decision, elucidating the implications for future PIP assessments and the broader social security law landscape.

The appellant, SL, contested the refusal of her PIP application, particularly challenging the definition of 'social support' under descriptor 9(c) of the daily living activities. The crux of the case centered on whether social support must originate from professionally trained individuals or could also include support from friends and family.

Summary of the Judgment

The Upper Tribunal set aside the First‑tier Tribunal's decision that denied SL entitlement to the daily living component of PIP. The original refusal was based on the interpretation that 'social support' must be provided by trained or professionally experienced individuals, thereby excluding support from friends or family.

The Upper Tribunal, presided over by Judge M R Hemingway, concluded that social support could indeed be provided by friends or family members who have the necessary experience, even in the absence of formal training. Consequently, the case was remitted to a differently constituted First-tier Tribunal for a fresh assessment, adhering to the clarified interpretation of 'social support'.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents and documents, notably:

• Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013: Provides the statutory framework for PIP.
• PR v Secretary of State [2015] UKUT 0584 (AAC): A pivotal case that influenced the interpretation of social support within PIP assessments.
• Government's Response to PIP Consultation (13 December 2012): Clarified the intent behind the definition of 'social support'.

These precedents collectively underscored the legislative intent to include non-professional sources of social support, thereby influencing the Upper Tribunal's interpretation.

Legal Reasoning

The judgment meticulously analyzed the definition of 'social support' as stipulated in Schedule 1 of the PIP Regulations 2013:

Judge Hemingway emphasized the conjunction "or" in the definition, indicating that formal training is not an absolute requirement. The term "experienced" was interpreted to encompass both professional expertise and personal experience in providing support.

The decision also considered the Government's consultation response, which explicitly acknowledged the role of friends and family in providing social support. This interpretative approach aligns with a purposive reading of the legislation, aiming to fulfill the intent behind the statutory provisions.

Impact

The Upper Tribunal's decision broadens the scope of eligible support sources for PIP assessments, ensuring that claimants can receive recognition for support provided by non-professional individuals. This inclusive interpretation potentially increases the number of claimants who might qualify for the daily living component, reflecting a more realistic and compassionate understanding of individual support networks.

Furthermore, the judgment sets a precedent for future cases, guiding tribunals to adopt a more flexible and context-sensitive approach when interpreting support criteria under social security laws.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Descriptor 9(c): Needs Social Support to Engage Face-to-Face

Descriptor 9(c) refers to the necessity for social support to engage with others in person. The initial interpretation suggested that such support must come from trained or professionally experienced individuals. However, the Upper Tribunal clarified that this support can also be provided by friends or family members who possess relevant experience, even without formal training.

Social Support Definition Interpretation

The crux of the issue lay in interpreting "support from a person trained or experienced". The judgment elucidated that "experienced" includes personal experience in providing support, thereby not limiting the definition to professional helpers only.

Conclusion

The Upper Tribunal's decision in SL v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions represents a pivotal moment in the interpretation of social support within PIP assessments. By affirming that friends and family can constitute valid sources of social support, the judgment aligns the assessment process with the lived realities of many individuals, ensuring broader and fairer access to necessary support.

This ruling not only rectifies the previous restrictive interpretation but also sets a progressive precedent for future determinations, promoting a more inclusive and empathetic approach within the social security adjudication framework.