TM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP): [2026] UKUT 266 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Stout on 10 July 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for its decision. This was in part as a result of inappropriate use of the “copy and paste” function. The Tribunal failed adequately to explain why it had rejected the appellant’s evidence or why it had reached the conclusions it did in relation to each of the activities.
The Tribunal also committed a number of other errors, including:
(a) determining the appeal on the papers without giving the appellant a further opportunity to attend a hearing, or providing adequate reasons for proceeding on the papers, in circumstances where it rejected the appellant’s evidence in relation to most activities (BV v SSWP [2018] UKUT 444 at [30] and JP v SSWP [2011] UKUT 459 (AAC) at [12]-[14] applied);
(b) in relation to daily living activity 9 (engaging with other people face to face), focusing on the appellant’s ability to interact in a work setting and failing to assess her ability to engage socially (KW v SSWP [2024] UKUT 410 (AAC) at [17]-[19] applied) and failing to take account that the appellant’s work involved interaction with vulnerable children rather than adults (HA v SSWP (PIP) [2018] UKUT 56 (AAC) at [16]-[17] applied);
(c) in relation to mobility activity 1 (planning and following journeys), treating the appellant’s ability to drive as determinative and failing to undertake a holistic assessment including her ability to use public transport (SB v SSWP (PIP) [2019] UKUT 274 (AAC) at [10] applied).