AW v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Wright |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] UKUT 76 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Personal independence payment – mobility activities,Personal independence payment – mobility activities - Mobility activity 2: moving around,Wright,S |
| Date | 09 March 2018 |
| Published date | 20 March 2018 |
AW v SSWP (PIP) [2018] UKUT 76 (AAC)
CPIP/2748/2017
1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No: CPIP/2748/2017
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Wright
DECISION
The Upper Tribunal allows the appeal of the appellant.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Watford on
10 February 2017 under reference SC304/16/02073 involved
an error on a point of law and is set aside.
The Upper Tribunal substitutes its own decision for that of
the First-tier Tribunal. The substituted decision of the Upper
Tribunal is to set aside the Secretary of State’s decision of 29
August 2016 and replace it with a decision that the appellant
is entitled to standard rate of the daily living component of
the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and the standard
rate of the mobility component of PIP for the period 28
September 2016 to 11 February 2019.
This decision is made under section 12(1), 12 (2)(a) and
12(2)(b)(ii) of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act
2007
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The parties in effect are in agreement that the First-tier Tribunal’s
decision of 10 February 2017 (“the tribunal”) should be set aside for
material error of law on the overarching ground identified in paragraph
3 below. I agree.
2. There is a difference of view amongst the parties as to whether in
consequence the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to
be re-decided or be re-decided by me. Contrary to the argument of the
Secretary of State, it is my view that there is no need for the appeal to
be remitted as I can decide the sole live issue (entitlement to the
standard rate of the mobility component of PIP) on the facts.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
CH and KN v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
...the subject of some discussion in previous Upper Tribunal cases, most recently in AW v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2018] UKUT 76 (AAC) in which the Secretary of State explained that a claimant is asked whether they want their DLA medical evidence to be used in the PIP If......