Skip to main content

HYM v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP): [2026] UKUT 367 (AAC)

Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Butler on 25 September 2026.

From:
HM Courts & Tribunals Service and Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
Published:
12 October 2026
Categories:
Personal independence payment – mobility activities
Judges:
Butler, J
Decision date:
25 September 2026

Read the full decision in UA-2024-001594-PIP.

Judicial Summary

The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved an error of law. Under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(ii) and (4) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, I set that decision aside and remake the decision as follows:

  1. The appeal is allowed.
  2. The Secretary of State’s decision dated 16 June 2022, as revised on 04 November 2022, is set aside.
  3. The Appellant is entitled to the daily living component of PIP at the enhanced rate from 02 April 2022 on an ongoing basis. It is inappropriate to fix the length of the award.
  4. The Appellant is entitled to the mobility component of PIP at the enhanced rate from 02 April 2022 on an ongoing basis. It is inappropriate to fix the length of the award.
  5. Regulation 27A(1) of the Personal Independence Payment (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2013 applies to the Appellant, with the effect that   section 83(1) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 does not prevent him being entitled to personal independence payment (“PIP”) despite having reached pensionable age at the date when the Respondent made its supersession decision on 16 June 2022.
  6. However, regulation 27A(2) of those regulations does not have any effect in relation to the Appellant’s entitlement to the mobility component of PIP. The Appellant’s original award of PIP was the award made on 14 October 2020. At the date of DWP’s supersession decision on 16 June 2022, the Appellant’s original award of PIP did not include the mobility component of PIP.
  7. Since the Appellant satisfied the requirements in regulation 27A(1) and was not caught by the provisions in regulation 27A(2) of the Personal Independence Payment (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2013, the fact he had reached pensionable age did not mean he was prevented from having any entitlement to the mobility component with effect from 02 April 2022 onwards.
  8. The parties do not dispute the basis on which DWP awarded the Appellant 12 points for daily living activities, which gives rise to the award of the daily living component at the enhanced rate.
  9. It is not disputed between the parties that at 02 April 2022, the effective date of DWP’s decision dated 16 June 2022, the Appellant had long-standing medical conditions that severely restricted his ability to perform the activities assessed for entitlement to the mobility component of PIP. Nor is it disputed between the parties that the resulting restrictions on his functional ability to carry out those activities meant the Appellant would score sufficient points for an award of the enhanced rate of the mobility component of PIP, and that those restrictions were unlikely to change.