CPAG search

Decision in brief

Tribunal wrongly classified the BAHA as a cochlear implant – but Upper Tribunal judge also said: ‘My understanding is that cochlear implants comprise both an implanted device and an external detachable element (the microphone and processor). If that is right, and both the internal and external parts need to be operational for the implant to work, then a cochlear implant should presumably be treated in the same way as a BAHA for present purposes’ (paragraph 10)

Comment from CPAG

It would be extraordinary for a BAHA not to be regarded as an aid or appliance. But this decision also indicates that so should cochlear implants, at least to the extent that they involve detachable elements, although that part of the decision is presumably obiter (and so not formally binding).

Decision in brief

That followed contact from the client on 18 August 2021, leading to form being issued by DWP in September 2021, a supersession decision of 18 November 2021 and mandatory reconsideration of 21 June 2022 – under paragraph 14 to Schedule 1 of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker's Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013, a supersession for change of circumstances that is advantageous to the claimant and has been notified more than one month after it occurred takes effect from the date of notification – that applied in this case and so the effective date was 18 August 2021

Decision in brief

Client appealed having had her adult disability payment unexpectedly reduced – First-tier Tribunal for Scotland declined jurisdiction on basis that claimant had not made a valid request for a redetermination and so no valid redetermination decision – but no requirement for a request to be valid that the claimant’s intention was to have their whole claim reconsidered

Decision in brief

Correct application of regulation 35 of the Disability Assistance for Working Age People (Scotland) Regulations 2022 (ie, the ADP regulations) was to make 13 January the commencement date of the award

Decision in brief

Regulation 6(33) of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 – after improved award of personal independence payment by a tribunal – claim must be made within three months of the tribunal decision – but in this case the claimant made the claim 11 days before the tribunal made its decision – so backdating on this basis could not apply

Decision in brief

Tribunal deciding appeal for original claim made an award and correctly limited the period of the award to the day before the date of the second claim – GG v SSWP (PIP) [2019] UKUT 318 (AAC) applied and followed

Decision in brief

Applies only to claims made after the date of the coming into force of the Order on 9 February 2023 – claims made before that date still fall to be determined with reference to the previous rules (ie, which did not provide for claimants who were a cohabiting partner, as the requirement was that they were married to, or in a civil partnership with, the deceased partner)

Decision in brief

Claimant, a Polish national, claimed jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) in March 2009, but by the time the decision on the claim was made, dated 2 May 2009, it had been held in the Upper Tribunal that the extension of the Worker Registration Scheme with effect from 1 May 2009 was unlawful – therefore, by the date of the decision in his case, the law no longer prevented the claimant from having a right to reside for JSA as a jobseeker.

Decision in brief

Claimant who could not hear speech and could only understand a written message if written in Urdu – restriction to Urdu not a sensory impairment and so not relevant to Activity 7 – but tribunal erred in requiring claimant to be impaired in understanding both verbal and non-verbal communication – in order to satisfy a descriptor a claimant needs to be impaired in understanding either spoken or written communication, but does not need to be impaired in both (AT and VC v SSWP (ESA) [2015] UKUT 445 (AAC)).

Decision in brief

Tribunal did not believe that claimant had been working or incurred and paid for childcare fees – tribunal took the correct approach to credibility and adequately explained its decision – principally relied on what the claimant said in evidence, not on how she appeared when giving it – cited inconsistencies, implausibilities and contradictions – tribunals do need to be aware of cultural issues when evaluating evidence but that is not a guarantee that evidence will be found to be credible – tribunal arranged an all-female tribunal environment to take account of the claimant’s religious sensitivities.

Decision in brief

Section 17(1) of the Social Security Act 1998 on finality of decisions (as explained in CSDLA/237/2003) means that as there cannot be two or more overlapping decisions concerning the same period; the tribunal considering the original appeal is limited to considering the period up to the date of the decision on the fresh claim – decision on the fresh claim must be challenged separately.

Decision in brief

Function of the Upper Tribunal in reasons appeals is to decide whether the [First-tier] tribunal’s decision on the substantial question in issue leaves the informed reader in no real and substantial doubt why it reached the conclusions it did – tribunal in this employment and support allowance case clearly addressed the points and activities put in issue and dealt with the substantial questions in an intelligible way, leaving no real or substantial doubt as to the reasons for the decision and what material considerations were taken into account.