Introduction

The case of AW v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) ([2018] UKUT 76 (AAC)) is a pivotal decision from the Upper Tribunal's Administrative Appeals Chamber. The appellant, AW, contested the Secretary of State's decision regarding his entitlement to the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), specifically the mobility activities component. The dispute primarily centered on whether AW qualified for the standard rate of the mobility component based on his ability to move around—a key determinant in PIP assessments.

This case is significant as it addresses the legal standards for evaluating mobility in PIP claims, especially concerning the consideration of prior Disability Living Allowance (DLA) awards. The Upper Tribunal's decision not only overturned the First-tier Tribunal's ruling but also set a precedent on the thoroughness required in assessing evidence related to mobility.

Summary of the Judgment

In this judgment, Upper Tribunal Judge Wright allowed AW's appeal against the Secretary of State's decision. The First-tier Tribunal's decision, which had denied AW the standard rate of the mobility component of PIP, was set aside due to a material error of law. The Upper Tribunal substituted its own decision, granting AW the standard rates for both the daily living and mobility components of PIP from 28 September 2016 to 11 February 2019.

The core reason for overturning the First-tier Tribunal's decision was its inadequate consideration of relevant evidence, particularly the appellant's prior higher rate mobility component (HRMC) of DLA. The First-tier Tribunal failed to sufficiently address evidence demonstrating AW's limited ability to walk between 20-50 meters, a critical factor under descriptor 2c of the PIP regulations.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that influenced the court's decision:

• R (Sumpter) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] EWCA Civ 1033: This case established that a higher rate DLA award could infer limitations in mobility, which should be considered in subsequent PIP assessments.
• AP v SSWP [2016] UKUT 0416 (AAC): Addressed the relevance of DLA evidence in PIP claims, supporting the notion that prior DLA evidence can be pertinent to current PIP assessments.
• GD v SSWP (PIP) [2017] UKUT 415 (AAC): Clarified the retention and use of DLA evidence in PIP claims, emphasizing procedural aspects related to the inclusion of such evidence.

These precedents collectively underscore the importance of considering an appellant's historical benefit awards and the associated evidence when determining current entitlements.

Legal Reasoning

Judge Wright identified that the First-tier Tribunal made a legal error by not providing sufficient findings of fact or adequately explaining why AW did not meet descriptor 2c for mobility under the PIP regulations. The Tribunal failed to thoroughly consider AW's condition and the evidence presented, including testimonies regarding his limited walking distance and breathlessness.

The Upper Tribunal emphasized that the prior HRMC of DLA was potentially relevant evidence under regulation 4(2A) of the PIP Regulations 2013. Despite this, the First-tier Tribunal did not sufficiently address this evidence, neglecting critical aspects of AW's mobility limitations. The Upper Tribunal reasoned that given the degenerative nature of AW's condition, it was unlikely that his mobility had improved since the DLA assessment, thereby reinforcing his entitlement to the standard rate of the mobility component.

Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted the Secretary of State's failure to present the DLA evidence, which could have provided a more comprehensive understanding of AW's mobility issues. The Upper Tribunal decided that it was appropriate to decide the sole live issue of mobility entitlement without remitting the case back to the First-tier Tribunal.

Impact

This judgment has several significant implications for future PIP claims:

• Enhanced Scrutiny of Evidence: Tribunals must meticulously examine all relevant evidence, including prior benefit awards like DLA, to ensure accurate assessments.
• Consideration of Prior Awards: The decision reinforces the relevance of previous HRMC DLA awards in evaluating current PIP claims, ensuring that past assessments inform current entitlements.
• Procedural Clarity: Clarifies the responsibilities of the Secretary of State in providing comprehensive evidence during PIP assessments, especially concerning the inclusion of DLA evidence.
• Precedent for Similar Cases: Establishes a benchmark for similar cases where claimants have prior HRMC DLA awards, guiding tribunals on the necessary considerations and evidence evaluation.

Overall, the decision promotes fairness and consistency in the evaluation of PIP claims, ensuring that individuals with genuine mobility limitations receive the support they are entitled to.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Upper Tribunal's decision in AW v. SSWP (PIP) underscores the necessity for tribunals to conduct thorough and legally sound assessments of PIP claims. By overturning the First-tier Tribunal's decision due to insufficient reasoning and failure to consider pertinent evidence, the Upper Tribunal affirmed the importance of comprehensive evidence evaluation, especially concerning an appellant’s prior benefit awards.

This judgment serves as a critical reference for future PIP cases, emphasizing that claimants with genuine and documented mobility limitations must have their circumstances meticulously reviewed to ensure fair entitlement. It reinforces the procedural responsibilities of the Secretary of State and highlights the Upper Tribunal's role in safeguarding the rights of individuals seeking support through the PIP system.