Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), December 02, 2016,  UKUT 545 (AAC)
|Resolution Date:||December 02, 2016|
|Issuing Organization:||Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)|
|Actores:||KL v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) (Personal independence payment mobility activities : Mobility activity 2: moving around)|
KL v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
 UKUT 0545 (AAC)
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Case No. CPIP/2292/2016
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before M R Hemingway: Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Decision: As the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (made on 1 March 2016 at Bolton
under reference SC122/15/00941) involved the making of an error in point of
law, it is set aside under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007 and the case is remitted to the tribunal for rehearing by a
differently constituted panel.
A. The tribunal must undertake a complete reconsideration of the issues that are raised by the appeal and, subject to the tribunal's discretion under section 12(8)(a) of the Social Security Act 1998, any other issues that merit consideration.
B. In particular, the tribunal must investigate and decide the claimant's entitlement to a personal independence payment but, in doing so, must not take account of circumstances that were not obtaining at the date of decision (21 September 2015): see section 12(8)(b) of the Social Security Act 1998.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The issues raised by this appeal
The appeal concerns the claimant's entitlement to a personal independence payment (PIP) and, in addition to matters relating to supersession and to the adequacy of the tribunal's reasons, raises an unusual question as to whether a relatively slow pace of walking which nevertheless amounts to walking ``within a reasonable time period'' as defined in Regulation 4(4)(c) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, can be taken into account as one of a range of factors in considering whether a claimant is able to stand and then move ``to an acceptable standard'' (see Regulation 4(2A)(b)).
By way of brief background, the claimant was accepted by the tribunal, as suffering from a number of health difficulties including fibromyalgia, arthritis and depression. She had first been awarded personal independence payment (PIP) on 17 March 2015. That was an award of the standard rate of the daily living component only from 5 January 2015 to 8 March 2017. It was made in light of conclusions contained in a report prepared by a health professional. It does not appear that she sought to challenge that decision. However, she subsequently completed and submitted a new form PIP2 because she considered a greater award to be appropriate. That led to her attending a second ``face-to-face consultation'' with a different health professional on 13 August 2015 and, thereafter, to a decision of 21 September 2015 to the effect that whilst she remained entitled to the daily living component of the standard rate only, the period of the award was now to run from 21 September 2015 to 12 August 2019. So that was clearly, although this was unstated, a decision made by way of supersession. The Secretary of State described it as an ``unplanned award review decision''. The claimant, though, was dissatisfied and after an unsuccessful application for a mandatory reconsideration she appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (the tribunal).
The appeal to the tribunal and its decision
The claimant had initially requested an oral hearing. However, she wrote to the tribunal shortly prior to the scheduled hearing date stating that she now wanted her appeal to be decided on the papers. So, a papers consideration took place. The tribunal confirmed the...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL