Social Security Case Law - Winter 2024

Headnote

From the moment a claimant reaches pensionable age, they are no longer entitled to either component of PIP, unless they come within one of the exceptions to Section 83 – there is no legal basis on which a component can be added on revision or supersession that did not previously exist before a claimant turns pensionable.

Case Overview

The issue in this case was whether the claimant could qualify for the mobility component of PIP after turning 65. In this instance the claimant made a successful claim for PIP before turning 65 in July 2015, and was awarded the daily living component at the standard rate. Later the Secretary of State made a supersession in February 2019, extending her award and adding the mobility component at the standard rate, despite the claimant having already turned 65 in September 2015. Later in 2021, after the claimant reported a change in her condition, the Secretary of State made a new decision which included the removal of the mobility component with retrospective effect on the grounds of official error. The claimant appealed the decision to the First-Tier tribunal and to the Upper Tribunal.

Judge Jacobs in the Upper Tribunal dismissed the claimant’s appeal, noting that from the moment the claimant turned 65, they were no longer entitled to claim either component of PIP, unless they come within one of the exceptions to Section 83, set out in Regulations 25-27 of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013. As the claimant in this case, did not have a mobility component included in their original award (before they turned 65), then they were not entitled to have this component added during a revision or supersession under Section 83.

Relevant Legislation

• Section 83 as set out Regulations 25-27 of The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013