(1) AH (2) AK v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP): [2026] UKUT 50 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Mrs Justice Heather Williams, Upper Tribunal Judge Stout and Upper Tribunal Judge Butler on 28 January 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
The two appeals were listed to be heard together by a three-judge panel of the Upper Tribunal because they raise questions of law of special difficulty or important points of principle or practice regarding the interpretation and application of the descriptors concerned with mobility activity 1 in Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/277) (“the 2013 Regulations”). In particular, the appeals raise questions regarding the way that regulation 4(2A) and regulation 7(2) of the 2013 Regulations are to be applied to these descriptors and the relationship between mobility descriptor 1.e and 1.f.
The three-judge panel’s conclusions in relation to these issues are summarised at [119] of the decision.
The three-judge panel decides that the mobility activity 1 descriptors should be considered in the following order: 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.f and then 1.e. Descriptor 1.e is to be considered last because it involves the greatest degree of functional limitation. The panel holds that regulation 4(2A) does apply to all of the mobility activity 1 descriptors, that its application to the “cannot do” descriptors 1.d and 1.f entails a two-part inquiry, as set out at [80-84] of the decision and that it should not be applied in a restrictive way that results in a cohort of claimants who experience psychological distress falling between descriptors 1.f and 1.e. The panel explains that it is not possible for a claimant to satisfy both descriptor 1.f and 1.e; and the entirety of the claimant’s conditions should be taken into account when the applicability of descriptor 1.f is assessed.
The panel also identifies the correct approach to applying regulation 7(2). This requires the decision-maker to consider in relation to each day of the required period, whether it is likely that the claimant would have met the descriptor if they were being assessed on this day and (where relevant, such as for descriptors 1.d and 1.f) if they had available to them the assistance contemplated by the descriptor at that time. What the claimant has actually done during the required period in terms of the activity in question will be relevant evidence when the regulation 7(2) test is being applied but is not determinative. Where the claimant has not undertaken the activity or has done so to a lesser extent than would be expected, the reasons for this will need to be examined in order to decide whether this is because of the functional effects of their medical condition(s).
The three-judge panel allows AH’s appeal on the basis of the First-tier Tribunal’s errors of law identified at [123 and 125] of the decision. The panel allows AK’s appeal on the basis of the First-tier Tribunal’s errors of law identified at [129] of the decision. The decisions of the First-tier Tribunals are set aside and the cases remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be determined in accordance with the law set out in this decision.