Factual and Procedural Background
The case concerns an appeal to a Social Security Commissioner on a question of law arising from a Tribunal's decision dated 20 August 2019 regarding entitlement to Personal Independence Payment (PIP). On 14 February 2018, a decision maker from the Department decided that the Appellant was not entitled to either component of PIP from 27 November 2017. This decision was reconsidered on 11 April 2018 but remained unchanged. The Appellant lodged an appeal on 8 May 2018. After two postponements, the appeal tribunal hearing was held on 20 August 2019, where the Appellant was present and represented but no Departmental Presenting Officer appeared. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the original decision, applying descriptors from the 2016 Regulations that the decision maker had not applied, but found the scores insufficient for entitlement at the standard rate.
Following this, an application for leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioners was refused on 16 March 2020. A further application was received on 30 July 2020 and supported in part by Decision Making Services. Leave to appeal was granted on 2 June 2021, with the late application accepted for special reasons. The Commissioner proceeded to consider the appeal on the basis of written submissions without an oral hearing.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appeal tribunal erred in law by making irrational findings and/or failing to give adequate reasons for findings on material matters, particularly in the award of points under Daily Living descriptor 1 concerning the preparation and cooking of a simple meal.
- Whether the appeal tribunal erred in law by making irrational findings and/or failing to give adequate reasons for findings on material matters, specifically regarding the award of points under Daily Living descriptor 6 relating to dressing and undressing.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The tribunal erred by awarding 2 points under descriptor 1(b) for the use of a microwave to prepare or cook a simple meal, which is not considered an aid or appliance under relevant case law.
- The tribunal’s reasoning was insufficient and potentially erroneous as it equated heating ready-prepared meals in a microwave with preparing and cooking a simple meal from fresh ingredients, contrary to established legal definitions.
- The tribunal failed to properly consider higher scoring descriptors (1e or 1f) which could have led to entitlement to PIP.
- The tribunal irrationally failed to award points for the need for prompting in dressing (descriptor 6), despite awarding points for prompting in other activities such as washing and engaging with others.
- The tribunal’s view that the Appellant’s preference to stay in pyjamas was a lifestyle choice ignored the impact of mental health conditions on motivation, making the failure to award points for dressing a material error.
Respondent's Arguments (Decision Making Services)
- Agreed with the Appellant that awarding points under descriptor 1(b) for microwave use was irrational and inadequate, and agreed that descriptor 1(c) was inappropriate given the evidence.
- Submitted that this error was not material because the only other applicable descriptor would have been 1(d), which carries the same points and would not have changed the outcome.
- Supported the contention that the tribunal’s findings about the Appellant’s credibility regarding previous fires were reasonable and did not require further explanation.
- Agreed that the tribunal made irrational findings regarding descriptor 6 (dressing), noting the tribunal did not adequately explain why prompting was required for some activities but not for dressing.
- Highlighted that the tribunal failed to query whether the Appellant needed prompting to dress appropriately when leaving the house, which was relevant to the assessment.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R(Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 982 |
Examples of errors of law in appellate tribunals, including making perverse findings and failing to give adequate reasons on material matters. |
Used to define what constitutes an error of law and to guide the assessment of the tribunal’s decision-making process. |
| Al v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2016] UKUT 322 (AAC) |
Clarification that a microwave is not an "aid or appliance" for cooking under PIP Regulations. |
Applied to determine that the tribunal erred in awarding points under descriptor 1(b) based on microwave use. |
| LC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2016] UKUT 150 (AAC) |
Definition of "simple meal" as a cooked one-course meal from fresh ingredients; heating ready meals in a microwave does not meet this standard. |
Applied to confirm the tribunal’s misunderstanding of the role of a microwave in food preparation and its effect on scoring. |
| C14/02-03(DLA), Commissioner Brown |
No universal rule requiring tribunals to explain credibility assessments in detail; it is sufficient to state disbelief. |
Supported the tribunal’s approach to credibility findings regarding the Appellant’s evidence about previous fires. |
| R3-01(IB)(T), Tribunal of Commissioners |
Clarified the duty of tribunals regarding explaining credibility assessments; no absolute obligation to provide detailed reasons. |
Confirmed the tribunal’s approach to credibility was acceptable and did not require further explanation. |
| CIS/4022/2007, Deputy Commissioner |
Summarised principles on credibility assessment, requiring adequate reasons for decisions but no universal obligation to explain every credibility finding. |
Provided the framework for assessing the tribunal’s decision-making and adequacy of reasons. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Commissioner began by defining what constitutes an error of law, referencing established case law that identifies such errors as perverse findings, inadequate reasons, misdirection of law, or procedural irregularities that affect the outcome. The Commissioner accepted the Appellant’s representative’s contention that the tribunal erred in law by awarding points under Daily Living descriptor 1(b) on the basis of microwave use, which is not recognized as an aid or appliance for cooking according to relevant Upper Tribunal decisions.
However, the Commissioner agreed with the Respondent that this error was not material because the only other applicable descriptor (1d) carried the same points and would not have altered the outcome. The tribunal’s rejection of the Appellant’s claim of having caused three fires was upheld as reasonable and consistent with the principles governing credibility assessments, which do not require detailed explanations for disbelief.
Regarding Daily Living descriptor 6 (dressing), the Commissioner found that the tribunal made an irrational finding by awarding points for prompting in other activities but not for dressing. The tribunal’s reasoning that the Appellant’s preference to stay in pyjamas was a lifestyle choice failed to consider the impact of mental health on motivation, which is precisely the rationale for awarding points for prompting in this descriptor. The Commissioner determined that the tribunal did not adequately explain this inconsistency and that this constituted a material error of law.
On review of all evidence, the Commissioner made a fresh finding of fact that the Appellant requires prompting to dress and undress due to lack of motivation and low mood, applying descriptor 6(c) which carries 2 points. This additional scoring raised the Appellant’s total points to the threshold for entitlement to the standard rate of the daily living component of PIP for the relevant period.
Holding and Implications
The Commissioner SET ASIDE the appeal tribunal's decision dated 20 August 2019, finding it was in error of law. The Commissioner substituted the decision with a revised determination that the Appellant is entitled to the standard rate of the daily living component of Personal Independence Payment from 21 March 2018 to 28 October 2021.
The decision directly affects the parties by awarding the Appellant entitlement for the specified period. The opinion does not establish new legal precedent but applies and clarifies existing principles regarding the interpretation of descriptors under the Personal Independence Payment Regulations and the standards for assessing credibility and errors of law in tribunal decisions.