MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP): [2020] UKUT 185 (AAC)

Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision of Judge Markus QC on 22 May 2020.

From:
HM Courts & Tribunals Service and Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
Published
6 July 2020
Categories:
Personal independence payment – general, Revisions, supersessions and reviews
Sub-categories:
Revisions, supersessions and reviews - other
Judges:
Markus, K
Decision date:
22 May 2020

Read the full decision in CPIP/1859/2019.

Judicial Summary

  1. The First-tier Tribunal had wrongly decided that the previous Personal Independent Payment decision was superseded for relevant change of circumstances, without making appropriate findings of fact or identifying a change of circumstances. In this case on the evidence the only proper basis for superseding was for receipt of medical evidence from a healthcare professional. In any event the tribunal should have allowed the Appellant to take advantage of supersession on the ground of new medical evidence so as to avoid the limitations arising under regulation 27(2) of the Social Security (Personal Independence) Regulations 2013. DS v SSWP [2016] UKUT 0538 (AAC).

  2. The tribunal wrongly decided that the previous award of the mobility component had been at the standard rate and so unlawfully applied regulation 27(3)(a) of the 2013 Regulations. The tribunal did not deal with the Secretary of State’s failure to comply with a direction requiring the previous award to be identified and failed to have regard to substantial evidence that the previous award had been at the enhanced rate.

Published 6 July 2020