A panel of three upper tribunal judges has made an important new decision in relation to the personal independence payment (PIP) mobility component, which should mean that more claimants are found to be entitled to the enhanced rate where they would previously have received the standard rate or no award at all.
We explain some of the main points of the 61 page decision for members below. But, more importantly, in the Benefits and Work Guide To PIP Claims and Reviews we have updated the section on planning and following a journey to take account of this ruling, without readers needing to follow all its complexities. (See “Upper tribunal ruling on descriptors d, e and f” page 82 of the Guide To PIP Claims and Reviews).
The case involved two claimants, known as AH and AK.
AH experienced anxiety, depression, panic attacks, back problems and fainting. She did not leave home without support and did so at best once a week because of the anxiety and distress it caused her. AH was awarded standard rate mobility for 1e, on the grounds that she could not undertake any journey due to overwhelming psychological distress. AH appealed on the basis that she could leave home when accompanied and so should have got enhanced mobility for descriptor 1f.
A first-tier tribunal found that AH’s distress when walking, even when accompanied, included: “hyperventilating, heart palpitations, legs shaking and wobbling; an inability to breath [sic] and physically vomiting due to panic”. The panel held that this meant she could not undertake any journey, safely, reliably, within a reasonable time period and to an acceptable standard for over 50% of the days and that the original decision was correct.
AK experienced anxiety, depression, severe eczema and loss of sight in his right eye. AK was awarded standard rate mobility for 1e, and appealed this decision. A first-tier tribunal found that AK’s mental health was so bad, exacerbated by his fear of catching Covid and his anxiety caused by his eyesight loss, that he did not go out save on very rare occasions. The tribunal held that the original decision was correct and that the law provides that where a person satisfies descriptor 1.e the Tribunal should not go on to consider 1.f.
A panel of three upper tribunal judges heard both cases together and upheld both of the claimant’s appeals, ruling that each case should be reheard by a new first-tier tribunal.
Amongst their findings, the judges held that:
- Decision makers should look at descriptor 1f before looking at descriptor 1e
- Regulation 4(2)A applies to “cannot” do descriptors as well as can do.
- 4(2)A should be applied in a “purposive and expansive way”,
- Claimants do not need to have attempted a mobility activity on 50% of days, nor do they need to show that support would, in reality be available on all of those days.
We explain these findings in more detail below
This section of the article is only available for our subscribers. Please click here to subscribe to a subscription plan to view this part of the article.
