Caselaw summaries

Personal independence payment (PIP) after pension age – claimant was entitled to standard rates of daily living and mobility components

Personal independence payment (PIP) – right of appeal after LEAP [legal entitlements and administrative practice] exercise and refusal to revise

Tribunals – tribunal (in attempting to establish when the claimant had satisfied the ‘required period condition’ for personal independence payment (PIP)) had consulted with the duty district judge before making its decision

Activity 2 (taking nutrition) – claimant with anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), who as a result overindulged in food and had difficulty knowing when to stop eating

Tribunals – alleged ‘oppressive’ and cross-examination style’ questioning by medical member of tribunal - not accepted

Appeal outside the ‘absolute’ time limit – following a ‘LEAP’ decision refusing to revise for official error – ‘truly exceptional’ nature of right of an appeal outside the absolute time limit

Use of the ‘sometimes’ tick-box answer on PIP2 claim form – tribunal erred in taking claimant’s ticking of that box as proof that he could perform them on most days

Appeal to Upper Tribunal – the First-tier Tribunal decision, having been found to have erred in law (on the ground of inadequate reasons for refusal of appeal, given that previous appeal was successful), not necessary for the Upper Tribunal to address the appellant’s remaining grounds of appeal, despite request that they be addressed

Activity 2 (taking nutrition) – applying definition of ‘take nutrition’, tribunal considered that meant that to score points under 2(b) other than for a need to use an aid or appliance, the claimant had to show an inability to cut food into pieces without an aid or appliance, and an inability to convey food and drink to the mouth without an aid or appliance, and an inability to chew without an aid or appliance, and an inability to swallow without an aid or an appliance

Claimant considered ‘unreliable’ witness by tribunal – no error in tribunal’s approach – no need for authority on approach taken in criminal case of R v Lucas