Ashanti Bailey v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP): [2026] UKUT 386 (AAC)

Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision of Judge Church on 05 October 2026.

• From: HM Courts & Tribunals Service and Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
• Published: 30 October 2026

• Categories: Personal independence payment – daily living activities and Revisions, supersessions and reviews
• Sub-categories: Personal independence payment – daily living activities - Activity 2: taking nutrition and Revisions, supersessions and reviews - official error
• Judges: Church, TH
• Decision date: 5 October 2026

Read the full decision in UA-2025-001337-PIP .

Judicial Summary

The First-tier Tribunal struck out the claimant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision on her entitlement to PIP (made more than 13 months prior to the claimant’s application) on the basis that the Secretary of State’s decision involved no official error and the tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction.

The Upper Tribunal finds that the Secretary of State and the First-tier Tribunal misdirected themselves in law by treating the claimant’s answers to the questions in her PIP questionnaire as definitive and not giving proper consideration to the evidence that accompanied it about the claimant’s eating disorder and the treatment she was receiving for it which included prompting and supervision of taking nutrition. They also erred in basing a finding that the claimant had no issues with taking nutrition on evidence showing that her weight had been stable for a sustained six-month period during which she was receiving prompting and supervision with her eating.

The Upper Tribunal set the decision aside and remitted the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing.