Kirsty Bell v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC): [2026] UKUT 365 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Wright on 24 September 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
This is another decision about the need for the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) to address the extent to which a claimant may satisfy the descriptors in Schedule 6 to the UC Regs, particularly where the substantial risk test under paragraph 4 in Schedule 9 to the UC Regs: see the recent further example of Michael Monaghan v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC) [2026] UKUT 325 (AAC). It also emphasises the need for the FTT to be clear about the evidence on which it bases its decision about the specific work-related activities the claimant may reasonably have been expected to undertake at the date of the decision under appeal and the most and least demanding work-related activities claimant might in fact have been required to undertake.
It also comments on the, at least unwiseness, of the FTT seeking to impose conditions on an appellant seeking reasons for the FTT’s decision, as the FTT had already been warned about in OU v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2024] UKUT 223 (AAC).