KB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Mesher |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] UKUT 537 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Personal independence payment – general,Revisions,supersessions,reviews,reviews - supersession: general,Mesher,J |
| Date | 02 December 2016 |
| Published date | 20 December 2016 |
KB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2016] UKUT 0537(AAC)
CPIP/1623/2016
CPIP/1623/2016
1
DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
The claimant's appeal to the Upper Tribunal is allowed. The decision of the Preston First-tier
Tribunal dated 11 March 2016 involved an error on a point of law and is set aside. The case is
remitted to a differently constituted tribunal within the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier
Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the directions given in paragraph 30 below and any
further procedural directions that may be given by a First-tier Tribunal judge (Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007, section 12(2)(b)(i)).
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The claimant appeals against the decision of the tribunal of 11 March 2016 with the
permission of Upper Tribunal Judge Wright given on 22 July 2016 after an oral hearing. The
representative of the Secretary of State (Mr Spencer) in the written submission dated 6 September
2016 supports the appeal to the Upper Tribunal and submits that the decision of the tribunal of 11
March 2016 should be set aside and the case remitted to a new tribunal for rehearing. In her reply
dated 5 October 2016 the claimant understandably did not really engage with the rather technical
issues of law raised in Mr Spencer’s submission, but concentrated on her current situation. That is
not something that the new tribunal will be able to consider directly, as it will be prohibited by
section 12(8)(b) of the Social Security Act 1998, just as the tribunal of 11 March 2016 was, from
considering circumstances obtaining only after the date of the decision under appeal (22 July 2015).
2. The claimant had claimed personal independence payment (PIP) in 2013. She completed a
PIP2 (how your disability affects you) form that she signed on 3 July 2013 and attended a
consultation with an occupational therapist on 4 November 2013. At that point she had diagnoses
of bi-polar mood disorder, anxiety disorder and irritable bowel syndrome. The occupational
therapist accepted that the claimant qualified for the following points-scoring daily living
descriptors: needs prompting to be able to either prepare or cook a simple meal (1(d)); needs
prompting to be able to take nutrition (2)(d); needs supervision or prompting to be able to wash or
bathe (4(c)); needs either prompting to be able to dress or undress or prompting to be able to select
appropriate clothing (6(c)); and needs prompting to be able to engage with other people (9)(b)).
She also accepted that the claimant qualified for mobility descriptor 1(b) for needing prompting to
be able to undertake any journey to avoid overwhelming psychological distress. She suggested a
review after two years because the claimant had long-term conditions requiring a long-term
management plan.
3. The award of the daily living component of PIP at the enhanced rate, but no mobility
component, was made for the period from 14 June 2013 to 13 June 2016, but the notification letter
dated 27 November 2013 stated that the claimant would be contacted after 13 June 2015 to make
sure she was receiving the right level of PIP.
4. The claimant was evidently contacted about that time because she completed another PIP2
form and signed it on 22 June 2015. On the PIP2 she described her conditions as general anxiety
To continue reading
Request your trial
9 cases
-
OM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
...(b) does the same for the enhanced rate. I expressed the view in paragraph 23 of KB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2016] UKUT 537 (AAC) that, although section 80(5)(a) allows regulations to provide that a negative determination is to be treated as made and regulations 8 a......
-
BB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA)
...[2015] UKUT 670 (AAC), now reported as [2016] AACR 24, and with my decisions in KB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2016] UKUT 537 (AAC) and DS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2016] UKUT 538 (AAC), to be reported as [2017] AACR 19. In so far as the approac......
-
TH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
...as DS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2016] UKUT 538 (AAC), KB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2016] UKUT 537 (AAC) and PM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2017] UKUT 37 11. Ms Frances Gigg, who represents the Secretary of State in these ......
-
MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
...applies, “change of circumstances” may be relevant. This is because (as explained by Upper Tribunal Judge Mesher in KB v SSWP (PIP) [2016] UKUT 537 (AAC)) receipt of a medical report provides a ground of supersession but does not determine the outcome. The outcome is determined by the condi......
Request a trial to view additional results