Caselaw summaries

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

Tribunals – responsibility to explain a decision apparently inconsistent with previous award

Tribunals – previous tribunal found that claimant was dishonest and had forged medical evidence