JT v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Rowland |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] UKUT 186 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Personal independence payment – daily living activities,Personal independence payment – daily living activities - Activity 9: engaging with other people face to face,Rowland,M |
| Date | 29 May 2020 |
| Published date | 08 July 2020 |
JT v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) 2020] UKUT 186 (AAC)
CPIP/1781/2019
1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Case No. CPIP/1781/2019
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Rowland
Decision: The claimant’s appeal is dismissed.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. This is an appeal, brought by the claimant with permission granted by Upper
Tribunal Judge Jacobs, against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 27 March 2019.
By that decision, it dismissed the claimant’s appeal against a decision of the Secretary of
State, dated 28 November 2016, terminating the claimant’s entitlement to disability living
allowance (the middle rate of the care component and the lower rate of the mobility
component) on 27 December 2016 and disallowing the claimant’s claim for personal
independence payment from 28 December 2016. Neither party has sought an oral hearing
before the Upper Tribunal and I am satisfied that I can properly determine this appeal
without one.
The facts and the procedural history
2. The claimant suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and, although that has been
substantially controlled by medication for several years, has a history of anxiety arising
from the condition and of problems coping with stress. Of relevance to the present appeal
are difficulties he has with recognising signs that he may be suffering from a relapse and
difficulties he has in engaging with people and, in particular, forming and maintaining
relationships. These give rise to questions about the proper interpretation of regulation
4(2A) of, and Schedule 1 to, the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment)
Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/377).
3. The case has a long history. The Secretary of State’s decision of 28 November
2016, disallowing the claimant’s claim for personal independence payment, was
reconsidered, but not revised (although the reasoning was different), on 16 March 2017.
An appeal was allowed on 31 October 2017, when the claimant was awarded the standard
rate of the daily living component of personal independence payment from 28 December
2016, but that decision was set aside by the First-tier Tribunal when the Secretary of State
applied for permission to appeal. Unconventionally, the decision was set aside under rule
37(1)(d) of the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2685)
on the ground that inadequate reasons had been given for the decision and that that was a
procedural irregularity, rather than under section 9(4)(c) of the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2008. In any event, the claimant did not challenge the setting aside at the
time – indeed, he appears not to have been offered an opportunity to object to the setting
aside, either before or after it took effect – and the appeal was reheard by a differently-
constituted tribunal and dismissed. This time it was the claimant who sought permission to
appeal. He was given permission by the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal allowed
his appeal (on file CPIP/1512/2018) and remitted the case for a third hearing before the
First-tier Tribunal. On 27 March 2019, the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the claimant’s
appeal for a second time. However, because the claimant had not wanted to attend
another hearing, even by telephone, it decided the case without one. The claimant again
sought permission to appeal. Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs gave permission and the case
To continue reading
Request your trial