‘To an acceptable standard’ in PIP

Introduction

For personal independence payment (PIP), a claimant is assessed as able to perform an activity only if they can do so safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and within a reasonable time period.1

The legislation defines what it means to do something safely, repeatedly and within a reasonable time period – up to a point. But there is no legal definition for ‘to an acceptable standard’. ‘So,’ as Judge Church asked in PA v SSWP [2019] UKUT 270 (AAC), ‘what does it mean?’

What does it mean?

PA was a case in which the claimant experienced pain when eating but had been awarded no points for taking nutrition under PIP Activity 2. Allowing the appeal, Judge Church concluded that ‘in the absence of definition [“to an acceptable standard”] must bear its everyday meaning, but given the general approach of the PIP scheme, that everyday meaning cannot be restricted to an objective assessment by a third party of how a claimant performs the activity. It must also take into account how the claimant experiences the activity him or herself.’

This approach has been reflected elsewhere: start with the plain English meaning of the term, and consider both an objective viewpoint and the claimant’s own experience.

Although not conclusive, the DWP’s interpretation in its PIP assessment guide (paragraph 2.2.12) is that ‘when considering acceptability there is clearly a range, from what is not perfect but is sufficient at one end, to an extremely high standard at the top end. In order for it to be acceptable, the standard which a claimant achieves must fall within this range. An “acceptable standard” is one which is “good enough”.’

Pain

If you can only perform an activity in pain, is that ‘good enough’? This has been a recurring question in the caselaw, which has also touched on symptoms like breathlessness, nausea, cramps and spasms.

In PA, Judge Church affirmed that ‘pain and discomfort when eating, and … a loss of appetite which the claimant attributed to the pain and difficulty she experiences when eating … were relevant factors to consider when deciding whether the claimant could perform the activity to an acceptable standard.’

In CPIP/2377/2015, which dealt with the PIP M2 mobility descriptors, Judge Parker confirmed that ‘matters such as pain, and its severity, and the frequency and nature, including extent, of any rests…are relevant to the question of whether a claimant can complete a mobility activity descriptor “to an acceptable standard”.’ The decision also alludes to breathlessness, nausea and cramp.

In PS v SSWP (PIP) [2016] UKUT 326 (AAC), the appellant experienced ‘considerable pain’ when walking but had told the DWP that he ‘would rather push through the pain in order to stay as active and independent as possible.’ Judge Markus concluded that this could fall short of walking to an acceptable standard, adding that ‘[the claimant’s] other difficulties while walking – his arm going into spasm or flailing, and his leg giving way – … could also be relevant to whether he could walk the distance to an acceptable standard.’

In PM v SSWP [2018] UKUT 138 (AAC), in the context of putting on compression bandages and citing the earlier decision in PS, Judge Perez stated that ‘arguably, doing an activity with pain is not doing it to an acceptable standard.’ When Judge Perez later decided LB v SSWP [2024] UKUT 338 (AAC), she went as far as to generalise that ‘walking despite pain is not to an acceptable standard’.

Noting that much of the caselaw on pain has focused on mobilising difficulties, Judge Fitzpatrick confirmed in KW v SSWP [2024] UKUT 410 (AAC) that she could ‘see no logical reason why the same approach should not be applied to the other PIP activities.’

So pain will be highly relevant to this test – although matters like severity and duration of the pain will also be relevant.

Quality of outcome

Can you judge whether an activity has been performed ‘to an acceptable standard’ by looking at the end result? Depending on the activity, the answer may be yes – for example, if a claimant attempts to select clothes and ends up wearing an outfit that is unhygenically dirty,2 or repeatedly burns or undercooks food, or can only produce one type of cooked meal from scratch.3

However, there is a strand of caselaw that puts limits on this principle. In MM and BJ v SSWP [2017] AACR 17, Judge Wright considered joined cases in which the appellants were able to take nutrition but struggled to eat healthily. Judge Wright dismissed the argument that these appellants could not take nutrition to an acceptable standard, holding that for PIP Activity 2: ‘the content of the food and drink is irrelevant. It is the actions involved in eating and drinking that have to be to an acceptable standard and not the food and drink consumed.’

Shortly afterwards, Judge Wright gave a similar decision in SSWP v KJ [2017] UKUT 358 (AAC), stating that ‘beyond these tasks associated with making a simple meal using fresh ingredients, I do not see where the dietary content of that which is being prepared or cooked falls to be taken into account.’

While quite specific to Activities 1 and 2, this approach could be applied to other PIP activities. In the very recent case of KL v SSWP [2025] UKUT 153 (AAC), Judge Gray cited MM and BJ, ruling that: ‘Activity 4 ... focuses on the act of washing and bathing, and the “acceptable standard” relates to the accomplishment of that functional activity, and not the result.’

KL was a case in which the appellant’s health condition made her body odour very strong and she struggled to remove the smell by washing. However, Judge Gray found that there was no physical or mental condition limiting KL’s ability to wash or bathe, and in this context the quality of the end result was irrelevant for PIP Activity 4.

Overall, it seems that poor-quality outcomes will be relevant only where the claimant has a limited ability to perform the exact function described in the relevant PIP activity.

Social engagement

However, sometimes it is difficult to pin down the exact function described in a PIP activity. For example, what precisely does it mean to ‘engage’ with other people for Activity 9?

In SSWP v AM [2015] UKUT 0215 (AAC), Judge Mark stated that ‘in determining whether a claimant can engage with other people to an acceptable standard, the factors set out in the surplus definition of “engage socially” are relevant considerations.’

These factors are (a) being able to interact with others ‘in a contextually and socially appropriate manner’, (b) being able to understand body language and (c) being able to establish relationships.

By 2018, Judge Rowley was able to conclude in HA v SSWP [2018] UKUT 56 (AAC) that ‘it is now widely accepted that the definition of “engage socially” … applies to daily living Activity 9, even though the expression does not actually appear within the terms of the activity or its descriptors.’

Setting out the three component parts of the definition, Judge Rowley agreed that ‘if a claimant is unable to satisfy these criteria, it follows that (s)he is unable to engage with other people “to an acceptable standard”.’

Even with these three headings to consider, it can be unclear whether a PIP claimant’s social engagement is ‘good enough’. While previous Upper Tribunal decisions can help us to an extent,4 decisions will largely be made on a case-by-case basis.

How to use the test

It makes sense to consider ‘to an acceptable standard’ at every stage of a PIP application – from completing the questionnaire to drafting a mandatory reconsideration request or appeal submission. It is advisable to mention the test by name and to explain (with examples) why a claimant cannot perform an activity to an acceptable standard.

Although best practice, failing to mention the test at appeal stage is not necessarily the end of the world. In PS v SSWP [2016] UKUT 326 (AAC), Judge Markus confirmed that the First-tier Tribunal in that case ‘was not relieved of the requirement to consider [the “acceptable standard” test] simply because it… had not been mentioned in terms by the appellant.’ This was because the test had been ‘put in issue by the evidence’ in that case.