Social Security Case Law - Spring 2025

Headnote

It is necessary for Tribunals to consider distance, time and rest breaks together when making a decision if a claimant can complete Activity 12: ‘Moving Around’ to an acceptable standard.

Background

The claimant had an active PIP claim since April 2020 at the enhanced rate of the Daily Living Component (14 points overall) and the standard rate for the Mobility Component (10 points overall). In September 2022, the claimant contacted the DWP to report additional conditions, which included, sleep apnoea and post-Covid syndrome.

This prompted the DWP to conduct an unscheduled review of the claim, which included an in-person healthcare assessment. Following this assessment, the claimant’s award was superseded, and the points awarded were reduced to 4 for the Daily Living Component and 0 for the Mobility Component. The claimant appealed.

The First Tribunal considered the case of a claimant for PIP who struggled with breathlessness. It found that “he could walk for 20 minutes” and he “could manage 300 to 500m slowly” and as a result, the First-tier Tribunal awarded 4 points for mobility 12b.

Legal Issue

The Upper Tribunal was asked to consider whether the decision of the First-Tier Tribunal was sufficient and if it considered the requirements in regulation 4(2A) when analysing the claimant’s ability to complete mobility activity 2 ‘Moving Around’.

Decision

The Upper Tribunal determined that the FTT had made an error in law stating:

“The First-tier Tribunal failed… to make a finding as to time and distance together…But both time and distance were needed to establish speed of walking for “within a reasonable time period” for regulation 4(2A)(d) and for “to an acceptable standard” for regulation 4(2A)(b).”

The Upper Tribunal also pointed out the First-tier Tribunals failure to consider the number and frequency of rest breaks in conjunction with the time and distance, as well as the claimant’s ability to repeat the activity.

Tribunals must consider all factors involved in the mobility activity and the impact they have together. They should consider the different factors in conjunction with one another and not treat them as separate elements, i.e. ‘and’ not ‘or’.

The appeal was allowed and remitted to a freshly constituted First-tier Tribunal.

Relevant Legislation

• The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/377), Reg. 4