Social Security Case Law - Autumn 2024

Headnote

Travel type is not necessarily a limiting factor when it comes to determining work-related activity and risk to health given the different options for remote meetings.

Background

Following a determination at tribunal that the appellant did not have limited capability for work-related activity the appellant applied to the Commissioner to appeal the decision. The claimant suffers from multiple health conditions, including vertigo, back pain, eczema, abdominal pain and hand cramps, which limit his ability to get around and travel. However, the original tribunal determined that the appellant’s evidence was not credible, with particular reference to the claimant’s mobility and the risk to his physical and mental health if deemed capable of work-related activity. The appellant in this case was represented by Advice North West.

Legal Issue

The Commissioner was tasked to determine whether the tribunal erred in law by failing to take into account the appellant’s medical and oral evidence and the risk to the appellant’s health in relation to work-related activity under the relevant LCW legislation. The Department representative also raised concerns about the tribunal proceeding with an out of date UC50 and whether this amounted to procedural unfairness.

Relevant Legislation

• Article 13(8)(b) of the Social Security (NI) Order 1998
• Article 17(2)(b), 24(1) and 43, The Welfare Reform Order (NI) 2015
• Part V and Schedules 6 to 9, The Universal Credit Regulations (NI) 2016

Decision

After reviewing the appeal and evidence of both sides, the Commissioner noted that the tribunal’s findings on the appellant’s credibility were primarily based around the appellant’s failure to pursue specialist medical appointments and there being some disparity about the claimant’s circumstances. The absence of a more up to date UC50 did not amount to procedural unfairness. While the Commissioner noted no inconsistency with the tribunals findings under the facts, it was also noted that the presence of a UC50 was not a requirement for the tribunal to make a decision when the claimant is present and provided oral evidence (even if that is via remote means). It was stated that whilst the tribunal could have provided a more comprehensive list of reasons for its decision, this did not amount to an error law. Additionally, the Commissioner noted that travel type (i.e. car) to work capability interviews and assessments is not necessarily a component of the work-related activity and the flexibility in relation to remote accessibility removes any risk to health that the claimant may be at risk of.