UKE v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP): [2026] UKUT 374 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision of Judge Church on 29 September 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
This appeal considers the proper approach to assessing the scoring of PIP daily living activity 7 in the context of a claimant with selective mutism.
The claimant claimed difficulties with communicating verbally, engaging with other people face to face and planning and following journeys (among other activities).
The First-tier Tribunal found that the claimant could communicate and speak freely with her children, her partner, her siblings, her mother and her employer, but was limited in her ability to communicate with everyone else. It awarded 4 points under daily living descriptor 9c (needs social support to be able to engage with other people) but awarded no points in relation to daily living activity 7 (communicating verbally) on the basis that her difficulties with verbal communication arose from her fear of social engagement, which had been recognised by the award of points under descriptor 9c.
The descriptors in Schedule 1 concern different activities. It is not intended that there be “double counting” by awarding points under multiple activities for the same functional limitation. However, there is no bar to awarding points in respect of difficulties with multiple activities arising from the same health condition.
The Tribunal should have made findings about whether the claimant’s difficulties with speaking basic and complex sentences were such that she could not speak to the standard required by Regulation 4(2A) of the PIP Regulations on the majority of days in the required period. If she was found to be sufficiently limited in her ability to do so, the Tribunal should have awarded points accordingly, as long as it was satisfied that the difficulties arose from her health conditions, and were not simply a matter of choice. It did not matter that the difficulties with speaking were rooted in social anxiety.
The Tribunal also failed to make adequate findings to support its decision that the claimant scored no points under mobility activity 1.
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, set the decision aside and remitted the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing.