NK v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) (Personal independence payment � mobility activities : Mobility activity 2: moving around)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, born in 1968 and living alone, claimed limited mobility caused by pain, stiffness, and exhaustion. The Plaintiff's allocated social worker reported a mental health condition involving psychotic symptoms and manic features, alongside somatic complaints of unclear origin, possibly related to the mental disorder. The Plaintiff reportedly lacked insight into the mental disorder, believing her issues had physical causes. A Health Professional found no physical impairment affecting mobility.

The Plaintiff appealed against a First-tier Tribunal decision dated 11 May 2015. The First-tier Tribunal had granted the enhanced daily living component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) but denied entitlement to the mobility component. The Plaintiff sought permission to appeal the mobility component decision to the Upper Tribunal, which was granted. Initially, the Secretary of State’s representative supported the appeal regarding mobility activity 1, but subsequently withdrew support following a relevant Upper Tribunal decision. The Plaintiff continued the appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the First-tier Tribunal adequately explored how the Plaintiff would undertake an unfamiliar journey, particularly interactions such as asking for directions, given the Plaintiff’s mental health and need for prompting.
2. Whether limitations on the Plaintiff’s ability to move due to somatic symptoms fall within mobility activity 2.
3. Whether the First-tier Tribunal’s reasons for its decision on mobility activity 2 were adequate.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analysed the First-tier Tribunal’s consideration of mobility activities against statutory and regulatory provisions, including section 79 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013.

Regarding mobility activity 1 (planning and following journeys), the Court noted the Tribunal did not explore how the Plaintiff would manage unfamiliar journeys involving interactions like asking for directions. However, subsequent Upper Tribunal decisions (HL and DA) clarified that descriptor 1d pertains only to navigation along a planned route and excludes other difficulties such as personal interactions. Since these decisions represent the law as it stood at the time of the Tribunal hearing, the failure to consider such interactions did not constitute a material error of law.

On mobility activity 2 (moving around), the Court accepted that limitations caused by somatic symptoms fall within the scope of the mobility component if the claimant genuinely experiences pain limiting mobility, regardless of whether symptoms are physical or psychosomatic. The Tribunal acknowledged the Plaintiff’s somatic symptoms but found, based on evidence including the Plaintiff’s own testimony and observed ability to walk significant distances, that the Plaintiff could mobilise over 200 metres unaided for more than 50% of the time. The Court found no material error in these findings despite some procedural omissions, such as not expressly applying regulation 7.

Other grounds, including whether the Tribunal should have adjourned for medical evidence or obtained a full document copy, were dismissed as not amounting to errors of law.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision is DISMISSED, upholding the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the mobility component of Personal Independence Payment.

The direct effect is that the Plaintiff’s appeal against the mobility component refusal fails. No new precedent was set; rather, the decision affirms existing interpretations of mobility descriptors and confirms that somatic symptoms can be considered under mobility activity 2 when genuinely limiting mobility.