PIP and aids

Introduction

The term ‘aid or appliance’ appears throughout the PIP descriptors.1 It is defined in the rules as meaning ‘any device which improves, provides or replaces [a claimant’s] impaired physical or mental function’, including a prosthesis.2

Early PIP caselaw confirmed that an aid does not need to be specifically designed to be used by disabled people, nor does it need to be issued by a medical professional.3 It might be an everyday object. For example, a claimant who leans on a piece of furniture to stand from sitting on the toilet is using it as an aid, in the same way that they might use a handrail as an aid.

Before long, however, another strand of caselaw indicated that everyday objects would not always count as aids for PIP purposes. The issue might hinge not just on how the claimant used a particular device, but how it was used by other people.

The 2016 caselaw

In CW v SSWP (PIP) [2016] UKUT 197 (AAC), reported as [2016] AACR 44, the Upper Tribunal considered whether a bed could count as an aid if a claimant needed to sit down to dress.

Judge Jacobs appeared to reject this possibility, stating:

‘The question is this: would this “aid” usually or normally be used by someone without any limitation in carrying out this particular aspect of the activity? If it would, the “aid” is not assisting to overcome the consequences of an impaired function that is involved in the activity and its descriptors’ (paragaph 31).

Judge Jacobs went on to use the example of a wooden spoon as a piece of equipment that, while necessary to perform an activity, could not count as an aid: ‘It would not assist in overcoming the consequences of any loss of function, because it would be used anyway.’

This decision has widely been interpreted as authority that a claimant will not be able to score points for PIP activity 6 on the basis of sitting on a bed or chair to dress, and more broadly, that points are unlikely where it is ‘normal’ for non-disabled people to perform any PIP activity using a particular piece of furniture or equipment in the same way that the claimant does.

Judge Markus appeared to uphold this interpretation in two later 2016 Upper Tribunal decisions: ED v SSWP CPIP/282/2016 and AP v SSWP [2016] UKUT 501 (AAC). She explained her reasoning in AP:

‘A person who has little or no choice as to the manner in which they can carry out an activity but who can do it nonetheless, is not limited in doing so. I respectfully agree with Judge Jacobs’ reasoning… Otherwise a claimant who can eat sitting down but needs an aid or assistance to eat standing up would qualify for points under activity 2, and a claimant who can sit in a bath but needs an aid or assistance to lie down in it would qualify for points under activity 4. Once that is understood, it can be seen that what is usual or normal is both a relevant and a necessary consideration.’

Official guidance

These decisions in 2016 influenced the DWP’s guidance to PIP assessors, which since at least July 2019 has stated:4

'Where the object would usually or normally be used in the same way by someone without any limitation in carrying out the relevant activity, it is unlikely to be considered an aid or appliance, for example sitting on a bed whilst getting dressed or using a pan with a rubber-grip handle when cooking. In those instances where claimants make use of such items, they should be scored as being able to complete the activity unaided.’

The 2024 decision

In BC v SSWP [2024] UKUT 450 (AAC), this interpretation was challenged. BC was decided in November 2024 but not published until November 2025. The decision centred on whether a fixed handle, part of the design of a standard bath, could count as an aid for PIP activity 4. In considering the 2016 caselaw, Judge Brewer stated: ‘CW does not establish as a blanket principle that if a device is commonly used by non-disabled and disabled persons alike it cannot constitute an aid for the purposes of the regulations. That is an impermissible overstatement of what CW decided’ (paragraph 41).

Instead, in reaching a decision that a bath handle could constitute an aid even if ‘normally’ used in the same way by non-disabled people, Judge Brewer returned to the wording of the PIP legislation, interpreting it broadly:

‘The regulations define an aid as “any device which improves, provides or replaces a claimant’s physical or mental function.” […]. The descriptor task directs the decision maker to consider whether the PIP claimant “needs to use an aid or appliance” to carry out the descriptor task. The definition of “aid” adopts unrestrictive language in respect of the device itself, by the use of the term “any”. The restriction or limitation within the definition is directed not at what the device is, but what it does for the PIP claimant – ie, does it improve, replace or provide for the impaired functioning to undertake the descriptor task’ (paragraph 47, original emphasis).

On this basis, Judge Brewer stated:

‘I am satisfied that where a claimant has evidenced a physical condition, and established that, but for the bath handles, he could not get into or out of a bath, the handles meet the definition of an aid… The fact… that individuals without functional impairments also use them is an unnecessary distraction. The core issue remains which is understanding and measuring the level of the claimant’s disability when carrying out a descriptor task and what, if any, device is or can be used to overcome it’ (paragraph 52).

Although Judge Brewer described this decision as compatible with CW and the other 2016 caselaw, this bottom line throws the common interpretation of those cases – and several others – into question.

Impact on claimants

There is the possibility that the DWP might appeal against the BC decision.5 If it stands, however, it is likely to dictate a different approach by the DWP towards aids and appliances. Where a claimant cannot perform an activity except by using a specific item, it seems very likely that device will now be accepted as an aid, even if this kind of usage is common.

This could mean that, depending on why they need to be used by the claimant, levered taps6 and lightweight pans7 are now accepted as aids in appropriate cases, along with ordinary beds and chairs used to dress sitting down, integrated bath handles and other similar items. The DWP will need to change its guidance to assessors, and it seems at least possible that it might launch a legal entitlement and administrative practices (LEAP) exercise looking again at decisions made since 13 November 2024 (when BC was decided) and awarding some claimants more points based on the new understanding of the rules.

‘Normal’ usage and aids now

Importantly, the decision in BC does not make ‘normal usage’ a total irrelevance. As the decision suggests, the core task in PIP is ‘understanding and measuring the level of the claimant’s disability’, and this inevitably means making some comparison with the functioning of an average non-disabled person. If a device is normally used in a particular way by non-disabled people, that may indicate that it is used to meet a common need that is not necessarily exceeded by this claimant’s needs arising from their disability. In the ‘sitting on a bed to dress’ example, it might be argued that a majority of non-disabled people would struggle to put on shoes and socks while standing, and if this is so, we may need to demonstrate that our client’s need for a bed exceeds the average’s non-disabled person’s (that the client cannot put on a jumper while standing, for example) before we can expect their bed to be treated as an aid.

Judge Brewer in BC also noted that ‘where a PIP claimant relies on their use of a common everyday device as evidence of functional impairment it may have limited or no value in establishing that function impairment’ (paragraph 51, original emphasis). This is a useful warning for advisers.