Social Security Case Law - Spring 2025

Headnote

Clarification on whether a Tribunal is obliged to take account of evidence regarding types of work-related activity specific to the local area where the appellant lives, when considering whether he had limited capacity for work and work-related activity. In addition, the Tribunal is required to assess whether a substantial risk to the appellant could arise if found not to have limited capacity for work-related activities.

Background

The appellant has been in receipt of Universal Credit since October 2019. On the 8^th of August 2022, the appellant returned a UC50 questionnaire to the Department, answering questions about his capacity to perform certain activities. Following this, the appellant attended a medical examination with a healthcare professional (HCP), and the Department received a copy of the HCP’s report in September 2022. The Department decided, based on all the evidence, that the appellant did not have limited capability for work. The appellant requested a reconsideration, submitting further information. In November 2022, the appellant asked the Department to reconsider their decision, however it remained unchanged and therefore the claimant submitted an appeal to the Social Security Tribunal. The Tribunal determined that the appellant had limited capability for work, not but limited capability for work-related activity. Following the statement of reasons, the appellant made an application to the Commissioner regarding the specific employment available within their local area and its impact on the claimant’s work capability status. The claimant as supported and represented by Community Advice Ards and North Down.

Legal Issue

The Commissioner was asked to consider whether the Tribunal should have regard to specific employment in the appellant’s areas when considering whether they had limited capability for work and work-related activity.

Decision

The Commissioner set aside the decision of the Appeal Tribunal and referred the case to a newly constituted tribunal for determination with the Department supporting the grounds of appeal.

As per paragraph [33]

“… the tribunal was required to address the types of work-related activity that were available to the appellant in his local area. The Department did not provide any evidence of that. However, the tribunal did not then direct production by the Department of relevant evidence.” Hence, this amounted to an error of law.”

Furthermore, concerning the issue of substantial risk, it was accepted that the tribunal failed to consider whether the appellant’s alcohol consumption amounted to alcohol dependency – and was, therefore, a relevant disablement for the purposes of paragraph 4 of Schedule 9. The claimant is suffering from a specific illness, disease of disablement by reason of which there would be a substantial risk to the physical or mental health of any person where the claimant [is] found not to have limited capacity for work and work-related activity.”

As per para [36]:

“I do not consider that the tribunal asked the right questions to establish whether the claimant’s drinking amounted to alcohol dependency and whether it was sufficient to bring him within the scope of paragraph 4 of Schedule 9.”

Relevant Legislation

• Social Security (NI) Order 1998, Article 15(8)(b)
• Schedule 6 of the Universal Credit Regulations (NI) 2016
• Schedule 7 of the Universal Credit Regulations (NI) 2016
• Schedule 9 of the Universal Credit Regulations (NI) 2016, paragraph 4
• Welfare Reform Order (NI) 2015, Article 17(2)(b

Relevant Case Law

• IM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] UKUT 412
• AH-v-Department for Communities [2017] NI Com 4
• KS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKUT 132
• Deputy Commissioner Gray in NS v Department for Communities [2023] NI Com 29
• CT v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKUT 131
• JG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] UKUT 37