Skip navigation

Social Security Case Law - Autumn 2024

Summaries of recent cases on social security law and practice.

BL v Department for Communities (PIP) [2024] NICom19

You can read the full judgment ‘here‘.

Headnote

It is not enough for a tribunal to only consider social groups that are familiar to a claimant – they must explore whether the claimant is able to engage with unfamiliar social circles.

Background

The applicant had previously been awarded Personal Independence Payment (PIP) from January 2018 to January 2021 at the enhanced rate of the daily living component and the standard rate of the mobility component.  He made a fresh claim for PIP in December 2020 due to his ongoing issues with inflammatory bowel disease, eczema, asthma, severe social anxiety and an inguinal hernia. After completing his application, participating in the healthcare consultation and submitting additional medial evidence the Department determined that he was entitled to the standard rate of the daily living component only. The decision remained unchanged after mandatory reconsideration and again after an appeal to the tribunal.

Legal Issue

The appellant made an application to the Commissioner that the tribunal had erred in law by failing to accurately consider the claimant’s evidence in relation to his ability to engage with other people and that he needed to be accompanied on all journeys. The Commissioner had to determine whether the tribunal made mistakes as to the material facts of the evidence and therefore erred in law.

Relevant Legislation

  • The Personal Independence Payment Regulations (NI) 2016
  • Article 82 of the Welfare Reform (NI) Order 2015

Relevant Case Law

  • PM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] UKUT 154

Decision

The Commissioner agrees with both parties that the tribunal did not properly take into account the evidence supplied by the appellant in relation to his ability to engage with other people face to face. It also made particular note of the case law raised in the submissions that outlined the definition of the activity. It relied on the decision in PM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] UKUT 154 that stated activity 9 does not exclusively include a person’s ability to establish relationships with people that are familiar (family and existing friends) or those with whom they need to engage with for a specific and limited purpose (health professional or tribunal). Therefore, it is insufficient for a tribunal to award a baseline of zero points due to a claimant’s ability to engage with these two categories of people.

In this case, the Commissioner concluded that the tribunal had erred in law as it failed to take into consideration people outside of the claimant’s familiar social circle and therefore should have explored this issue further. The Commissioner did not provide any more insight into the tribunal’s assessment into Mobility Activity 1 as the appeal was decided on other grounds.

The tribunal decision has been set aside and it is to be redetermined by a newly constituted tribunal.