Social Security Case Law - Winter 2024

Headnote

A Tribunal should consider the nature in which an appointee was appointed and whether this acts as evidence to support point scoring in PIP descriptors and if not it should provide reasons for its decision.

Background

The  appointee, made a claim for PIP upon his son reaching the age of sixteen. There had previously been an award of the lower rate of the mobility component and the highest rate of the care component of DLA as a child. The claim for PIP was unsuccessful and the decision upheld at the Appeal Tribunal.

Legal Issue

The appellant made an application to the Commissioner on the grounds that the Tribunal had erred in law by considering matters that post-dated the decision and in not providing adequate reasoning for its decision. Particular reference was given to the question of whether a Tribunal has to explain its reasoning for not awarding points under potentially related PIP activities where an appointee has been appointed because a claimant is incapable of acting on their own behalf.

Decision

The Commissioner allowed the appeal and remitted it to a freshly constituted Tribunal. The appellant was supported by the Department in their arguments relating to the Tribunal considering issues that post-dated the decision under appeal and that this amounted to an error of law.

The Commissioner also referred to the issue of whether the requirement for an appointee to manage the benefit claim should be considered as relevant evidence that a claimant might have difficulties with some of the claimed activities. He noted:

‘Where the appointment is made when a claimant is unable [to manage] their own affairs it may be of relevance depending upon the benefit under consideration. I agree with [the Department] that this seems to be the position here from the papers.’ [para 38]

The Commissioner also notes previous case law (assisted by the Department representative) that highlights the need to provide an explanation as to why an appointee has been appointed and how it might evidence a claimant’s needs or concerns. After reviewing this issue, the Commissioner remitted the decision back to a freshly constituted Tribunal with specific directions to clarify issues in respect of whether the appointment of the claimants father as appointee was for reasons of physical or mental disability and whether this engages any of the PIP activities and can be considered as further evidence of other descriptors.

Relevant Legislation

• Article 82 of the Welfare Reform (NI) Order 2015
• Personal Independence Payment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016
• Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 13(8)(b)
• Regulation 33 & 43(1) of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations (NI) 1987

Relevant Case Law

• UB v Department for Communities [2020] NI Com 55
• JR v Department for Communities [2023] NI Com 1
• DO’S v Department for Communities [2021] NI Com 23
• MR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2017] UKUT 86 (AAC)
• TH v Department for Communities (PIP) [2022] NICom 13
• SF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKUT 0481 (AAC)
• PS- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKUT 326 (AAC)