Caselaw summaries

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

Amendments made by the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (SI No.194) regarding Activity 3 (Managing therapy or monitoring a health condition), in an attempt to reverse effect of the decision of the Upper Tribunal in SSWP v LB (PIP) [2016] UKUT 0530 (AAC) – not unlawful

Mobility component after pension age – inability to start getting mobility component after pension age

Tribunals – tribunal erred in failing properly to consider claimant’s request for a face-to-face hearing rather than by telephone

Tribunals – claimant appealed regarding personal independence payment and while appeal was pending made a second claim - withdrew the second claim but DWP ignored that and made a decision in the second claim

Personal independence payment - (PIP) - alcohol use disorder – assessment in PIP cases

Claimant with autism – tribunal failed to explain (regarding mobility Activity 1) why it rejected evidence of the claimant suffering severe anxiety (and so ‘overwhelming psychological distress’) when on a journey