MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Rowland,Judge Rowley,Judge Hemingway |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] UKUT 531 (AAC) |
| Subject Matter | Personal independence payment – mobility activities,Personal independence payment – mobility activities - Mobility activity 1: planning,following journeys,Personal independence payment – mobility activities - Mobility activity 2: moving around,Three Judge Panel |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Date | 28 November 2016 |
[2018] AACR 12
(MH v SSWP)
(Three-Judge Panel)
1
[2018] AACR 12
(MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions)
[2016] UKUT 0531 (AAC)
Judge Rowland CPIP/1347/2015
Judge Rowley UK/508/2015
Judge Hemingway CPIP/636/2016
28 November 2016
Personal Independence Payment – mobility activity 1 – ability to follow the route of a
journey without another person – whether a need to be accompanied to avoid
overwhelming psychological distress is relevant
The Upper Tribunal had before it three appeals concerning the mobility descriptors of personal independence
payment. In the first case, the claimant had been found to be unable to undertake any journ ey because it would
cause overwhelming distress to him (descriptor 1(e)) but appealed on the ground that the overwhelming distress
he would suffer if he went out meant that he also could not f ollow the route of a familiar journey without another
person (descriptor 1(f)) and that the retching he would experience would make him unable to move mo re than 50
metres (descriptor 2( c)). In the second case, the claimant suffered from severe anxiety and had been awarded 2
points in respect of daily living descriptor 9(b) on account of a need for prompting to enable her to eng age with
others but had not been awarded any points in respect of mobility descriptors. She appealed on the ground that
the First-tier Tribunal had erred in not having regard to its finding that she satisfied daily living descriptor 9(b)
when considering mobility activity 1 which, she argued, was relevant to her ability to seek directions when she
was lost and so to the question whether she was able to follow the route of an unfamiliar route for the purposes
of mobility descriptor 1(d). In the third case, the First-tier Tribun al found that the claimant had not been out of
her house unaccompanied for four years and awarded her the enhanced rate of the mobility component on the
ground that she could not follow the route of a familiar journey without another person and so satisfied
descriptor 1(f). The Secretary of State app ealed on the ground that the descriptor was concerned only with an
ability to navigate rather than a broader need for supervision.
Held, dismissing the claimant’s app eal in the first case, allowing the claiman t’s appeal in the second case
dismissing the Secretary of State’s appeal in the third case, that:
1. the different terminology in descriptors 1(b) and (e) as opposed to descriptors 1(d) and (f) was not of itself
significant and did not indicate that they were concerned with mutually exclusive issues making ‘overwhelming
psychological distress’ relevant only to descriptors 1(b) and (e) and not also to descriptors 1(d ) and (f).
(paragraph 35);
2. the meaning of ‘follow the route of a journey’ in mobility descriptors 1(d) and 1(f), when giv en its natural or
ordinary meaning, clearly included an ability to navigate but was not limited to that, although a claimant’s
inability to engage in communication with people to find her way if lost was irrelevant (paragraphs 36 to 38) ;
3. descriptors 1(e) and 1(f) could not be read in isolation from each other and the legislation contemplated t hat,
where descriptor 1(e) was satisfied because the claimant needed to avoid overwhelming psychological distress
by not undertaking any journey, the claimant would not u ndertake journeys so that the need for consideration of
descriptor 1(f) owing to such severe anxiety on a journey would not arise (paragrap h 41);
4. where claimants suffer ed from severe anxiety, descriptors 1(d) and 1(f) had to be applied in the light of
descriptors 1(b) and 1(e) with due regard being had to the term ‘o verwhelming psychological distress’. Only if a
claimant was suffering from ‘overwhelming psychological distress’ would anxiety be a cause of the claiman t
being unable to follow the route of a jo urney. The threshold was a very high one and a claimant being anxious or
worried was not sufficient (paragraph 48);
5. similarly, the relationship between mobility activity 1 and mobility activity 2 was such that physical
symptoms arising from o verwhelming psychological distress and only affecting the claimant’s ability to move if
he or she undertook journeys out of doors were not to be taken into account under activity 2 where descriptor
1(e) was satisfied (paragraph 52);
[2018] AACR 12
(MH v SSWP)
(Three-Judge Panel)
2
6. notwithstanding the fact that the terms ‘prompting’ and ‘overwhelming psychological distress’ were found in
both daily living activity 9 and mobility activity 1, it did not follow that an award of points under one would
necessarily indicate an award of points under the other (paragraph 54).
DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
CPIP/1347/2015
The appellant was represented by Mr James Hutchfull, Duncan Lewis, solicitors.
The respondent was represented by Ms Fiona Scolding of counsel.
UK/508/2015
The appellant was represented by Mr Tom Royston of counsel.
The respondent was represented by Ms Fiona Scolding of counsel
CPIP/636/2016
The appellant was represented by Ms Fiona Scolding of counsel
The respondent was represented by Mr Tom Royston of counsel
Decisions: The claimant’s appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting
at Bexleyheath on 15 January 2015 under reference SC168/14/01425 is dismissed because the
decision did not involve an error of law.
The claimant’s appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Sheffield on 25
November 2014 under reference SC147/14/00934 is allowed because the decision did involve
an error of law. The case is remitted to a differently constituted panel of the First-tier Tribunal
to be re-decided in accordance with the reasons for our decision.
The Secretary of State’s appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting
at Sheffield on 17 November 2015 under reference SC147/15/01445 is dismissed because the
decision did not involve an error law.
REASONS FOR DECISIONS
Introduction
1. These appeals raise issues of importance and difficulty regarding the interpretation and
application of the descriptors concerned with entitlement to the mobility component of
personal independence payment (PIP). Those issues primarily relate to the descriptors linked
to mobility activity 1.
To continue reading
Request your trial
24 cases
-
MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
...refer to what happens before the individual leaves the house (if he ever does) (MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2016] UKUT 531 (AAC), at [44]). Similarly, planning the route of a journey (1c) requires cognitive skills which are likely to be applied before an individual ......
-
RJ, GMcL and CS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v RJ (PIP)
...PIP Regulations (see for instance the recent decision of the three-judge panel in MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2016] UKUT 531 (AAC)), the background materials available to us do not assist in the interpretation of regulation 4(4)(a). They leave considerable doubt as ......
-
GJ v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
...cases, as it might have been affected by the Upper Tribunal decisions in MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SSWP) (PIP) [2016] UKUT 531 (AAC); [2018] AACR 12 and RJ, GMcL and CS v SSWP (PIP) [2017] UKUT 105 (AAC); [2017] AACR 32. In the event, although the 2017 decision was look......
-
RF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
...and its gestational history is set out in the decision of the Upper Tribunal in MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2016] UKUT 0531 (AAC). 5 In December 2010, the new coalition Government launched a consultation on the reform of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) (Cm 7984). ......
Request a trial to view additional results