PD v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Poynter |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] UKUT 172 (AAC) |
| Subject Matter | Tribunal procedure,practice - fair hearing,practice - tribunal practice,Poynter,R |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Published date | 28 July 2021 |
1
[2021] UKUT 172 (AAC)
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
Appeal No. CPIP/548/2020
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
On appeal from the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
Between:
PD
Appellant
-v-
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Respondent
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Poynter
Decision date:
8 July 2021
Decided on consideration of the papers
Representation
Appellant:
In person
Respondent
DWP Decision-Making and Appeals, Leeds
DECISION
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal succeeds.
The First-tier Tribunal made a legal mistake in relation to the claimant’s appeal
(ref. SC947/19/00021) which was decided at Rochdale on 12 November 2019.
That decision is set aside and the case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for
reconsideration in accordance with the directions given below.
I draw the claimant’s attention to the fact that those directions are addressed to
her as well as to the new tribunal and that Direction 11 below includes a time
limit.
PD v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
[2021] UKUT 172 (AAC)
2
DIRECTIONS
To the First-tier Tribunal
1 The judge who presided over the tribunal that made the decision I have set aside
(and who is described as “Judge A” in the Reasons below) must have no further
involvement whatsoever with any aspect of this case.
2 Further, the members of the First-tier Tribunal who are chosen to reconsider the
case (collectively, "the new tribunal") must not include any medical member or
disability-qualified member who were members of Tribunals 1–4 (as further
defined in the Reasons below).
3 The new tribunal must hold a hearing at which it must undertake a full
reconsideration of all the issues raised by the appeal and—subject to the
discretion conferred by section 12(8)(a) of the Social Security Act 1998 and to its
duty to conduct a fair hearing—any other issues it may consider it appropriate to
decide.
4 In that respect, I direct the new tribunal that, whatever the position may have been
when the appeal was first lodged, whether the claimant was properly entitled to
personal independence payment from and including 16 April 2015 (the date from
which that benefit was first awarded) has become an issue that is raised by the
appeal.
5 However, the new tribunal may only supersede the decision of Tribunal 1 (which
made that award of benefit) if it is satisfied that Tribunal 1’s decision was “made in
ignorance of, or was based upon a mistake as to, some material fact”: see
regulation 31(a) of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment,
Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and
Appeals) Regulations 2013 ("the 2013 Regulations").
6 For those purposes, a fact is “material” if it is a “primary” fact that would have
made a difference had Tribunal 1 not been ignorant of, or mistaken as to, it. It is
not sufficient that the new tribunal would not itself have awarded benefit on the
facts that existed at the effective date of Tribunal 1’s decision. I observe that, in
the absence of a written statement of reasons, the primary facts found by Tribunal
1 can only be ascertained by inference.
7 For the sake of completeness, I draw the new tribunal’s attention to section 10(5)
and (6) of the Social Security Act 1998 and regulation 37 of the 2013 Regulations
To continue reading
Request your trial