CPAG search

If you're an adviser, you might like to try our Welfare Rights search.

Displaying 589 - 600 of 1819

Social Security Scotland v BM

[2024] UT58

Adult disability payment – points counting towards entitlement can only be scored if the claimant’s functional limitation is causally linked to a medical condition

Decision in brief

Claimant not entitled to points regarding daily living activity 10 (making budgeting decisions) merely on the basis that he was not permitted to operate a bank account because he was an undischarged bankrupt – decisions about entitlement should specify whether an award is for a fixed or a limited period

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal for Scotland
On
Appeal reference
UTS/AS/24/0058
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service website

SO v SSWP (UC)

[2024] UKUT 305 (AAC)

Universal credit (UC) – student income

Decision in brief

Student in Wales whose maximum student loan was reduced by a Welsh Government Learning Grant (‘WGLG’) – in legal reality, this was simply a label for what remained of her maintenance grant after the rest of it had been treated as part of her special support payment – the ‘WGLG’ did not fall to be disregarded and the claimant’s maximum student loan did not fall to be reduced by it – test regarding ability to acquire a maximum student loan in regulation 69(1) of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 is notional and does not require analysis of the reasonableness of the steps in fact taken by a particular student – effect is that the maximum student loan was not reduced by the grant

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2022-001601-USTA
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on GOV.UK

KA v SSWP

[2024] UKUT 248 (AAC)

Tribunals – breach of natural justice

Decision in brief

Issue in claimant’s personal independence payment (PIP) appeal was whether at the time of her claim she was a person subject to immigration control – tribunal wrongly relied on evidence from Home Office that she was a person subject to immigration control without further consideration, when claimant had submitted evidence to the effect that she was not – tribunal should not have proceeded on the papers, and claimant unfairly told she did not need to attend a further hearing – claimant was unfairly not given an opportunity to respond to the Home Office evidence, which was wrongly not disclosed to the tribunal or appellant but merely read out at the reconvened hearing

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2024-000354-PIP
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

JM v SSWP

[2024] UKUT 283 (AAC)

Tribunals and personal independence payment (PIP) – claimant diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and significant social anxiety

Decision in brief

In refusing a number of points under the daily living activity, the tribunal did not adequately explain why it did not accept the evidence of the claimant and her mother – the tribunal seemed to prefer other evidence and reason from claimants ability to, for example, undertake driving lessons – although entitled to weigh evidence as it sees fit, the tribunal must ‘consider it in a holistic manner, make sufficient findings of fact and provide adequate reasons explaining why it preferred the evidence that it has’ – if ‘reading across’ from ability in one activity to another, must ensure the activity is genuinely comparable to the one it is considering

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2024-000378-PIP
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

CF v SSWP (PIP)

[2024] UKUT 244 (AAC)

Activity 3 (managing therapy or monitoring a health condition) – prescribed compression stockings are ‘therapy’ for purposes of the activity and tribunal should have considered whether any of the descriptors in it applied as a result of the claimant’s difficulties in putting on and taking off the stockings

Decision in brief

Because the compression stockings were ‘therapy’, difficulties with them could not also lead to points under Activity 6 (dressing and undressing) as that is about the ‘more general’ activity of dressing and undressing, but the tribunal also erred in failing to consider whether the claimant qualified for points there as a result of difficulties dressing or undressing with ‘normal’ clothes

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2024-000104-PIP
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

SE v SSWP

[2024] UKUT 405 (AAC)

EU co-ordination rules – carer’s allowance where family member in receipt of a disability pension from Switzerland

Decision in brief

Application of Court of Appeal decision in Harrington v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2023] 1 WLR 3477 – under Article 11(2)(e) of Regulation (EC) No.883/2004, on the facts the claimant’s competent state was her state of residence (ie, the UK) – that was not displaced by Article 29 (‘cash benefits for pensioners’) as that merely ensured that the claimant, as the family member of a pensioner, may be entitled to cash sickness benefits by the state responsible for the pension – but it did not have the effect of removing entitlement to cash benefits from the family member’s state of residence (ie, the UK, in this case) where they were otherwise entitled – claimant’s competent state was therefore the UK and she was entitled to carer’s allowance

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2022-000202-CA
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

QWH v SSWP

[2024] UKUT 339 (AAC)

Tribunals – error for failing to make adequate findings of fact and give adequate reasons in refusing daily living component – also for adopting ‘flawed findings’ in healthcare professional’s report

Decision in brief

Tribunal had been sufficiently persuaded of adverse effects of claimant’s mental health problems to award 10 points in mobility descriptor, and that indicated that a mental health issued could have had more of an effect on daily living than the tribunal found – tribunal needed to explain more about that

 

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2024-000689-PIP
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

MK (by his appointee, FM) v SSWP

[2024] UKUT 378 (AAC)

PIP – young person with primary ciliary dyskinesia (PSD, a rare inherited lung disorder) previously entitled to low rate care component disability living allowance refused personal independence payment on transfer

Decision in brief

In rejecting appeal, First-tier Tribunal made insufficient finding of fact and gave inadequate reasons – tribunal wrongly excluded cleaning and sterilising therapy equipment from consideration of managing therapy – Secretary of State conceded that any essential clearing and maintenance of the therapy device should be treated as part of the therapy regime – although, on the facts, the time taken would still not have led to an increased award of points for that

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2024-000163-PIP
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

LB v SSWP

[2024] UKUT 338 (AAC)

PIP mobility and walking in pain – tribunal needed to making finding regarding level of pain the claimant is in while walking (including in supermarket aisles, which the tribunal had referred to as evidence)

Decision in brief

Need to consider whether ability to walk is to an acceptable standard (as explained in PS v SSWP [2016] UKUT 326 (AAC)) – ‘walking despite pain is not to an acceptable standard’

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2024-000699-PIP
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

KW v Social Security Scotland

[2024] UT 65

Upper Tribunal for Scotland (UTS) – permission to appeal

Decision in brief

Permission refused as essence of the application was a dispute over the facts and credibility findings of the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (FTS) – need to show an arguable error of law – law restricts appeals to the UTS to points of law only (s46(2)(b) of the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014) – FTS is in a better position than the UTS to make judgements about factual matters and credibility – to be proper and adequate, the reasons of the FTS for its decision do not have to involve every aspect of the evidence before it – ‘The decision of the FTS has to be read as a whole, in a straightforward manner, and recognising it is addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved (AK v Social Security Scotland [2024] UT 5, para 8).’

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal for Scotland
On
Appeal reference
UTS/AS/24/0059
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service website

KW v SSWP

[2024] UKUT 410 (AAC)

PIP daily living Activity 9 (‘Engaging with other people’) – important to take a holistic approach rather than focus on one area, such as the claimant’s employment

Decision in brief

Where a claimant says that they have difficulty in doing activity due to pain, it is important to take account of that in particular regarding ability to do the activity repeatedly and within a reasonable time, and make relevant findings of fact

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2024-000665-PIP
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

KL by MR v SSWP

[2024] UKUT 392 (AAC)

Universal credit – entitlement while receiving education

Decision in brief

Claimant was in receipt of personal independence payment, but due to Covid- related delays was still awaiting a work capability assessment by the time he started his course of study – consequently was no determination awarding limited capability for work (LCW) by that time under so could not be entitled (under regulation 14(1)(b) of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013) to UC as a disabled student – tribunal did not err in refusing the claimant’s appeal – ‘no way round’ the problem that the claimant did not have a LCW determination before he started his studies

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2023-000701-USTA
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website