SL v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)

For descriptor 9(c), “social support” is not confined to professionally supplied support or to assistance from a person with formal training or specialist expertise. Under Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, a person may qualify through experience alone. A friend, family member or other lay person may therefore provide the required support if, on the evidence, that person is experienced in assisting the claimant to engage in social situations.

The experience requirement remains substantive. Decision-makers may need evidence of the duration and frequency of the support. A tribunal also errs in law where inadequate findings about the frequency of relevant difficulties prevent a proper determination of entitlement.

The claimant applied for personal independence payment, relying on mental-health and physical conditions. The Secretary of State refused the claim on 23 April 2015. On appeal, the First-tier Tribunal awarded the standard-rate mobility component under descriptor 11(e), but no daily-living component.

The First-tier Tribunal held that support from friends or family could not satisfy descriptor 9(c), concerning engagement with other people face to face. It also made limited findings on the frequency of other claimed daily-living difficulties. The claimant appealed to the Upper Tribunal, contending that both matters disclosed errors of law.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision involved material errors of law. It was set aside under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and remitted to a differently constituted First-tier Tribunal.

2. The First-tier Tribunal misinterpreted descriptor 9(c). The definition of social support in Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 requires support from a person who is trained or experienced in assisting people to engage in social situations. Experience alone is sufficient. Nothing in the wording requires professional experience, qualifications or specialist knowledge, or excludes family members and friends.

3. Accordingly, a lay person who has gained relevant experience by supporting an individual close to them may provide social support for descriptor 9(c). Whether the descriptor is met remains a factual question. The requirement that the supporter be experienced must not be overlooked; evidence about the length and frequency of the assistance may be required.

4. The consultation response supported that construction as an indication of the intended meaning, though it was not invariably determinative of interpretation. PR v Secretary of State [2015] UKUT 0584 (AAC) did not conclusively decide whether family or friends could provide social support, and the Upper Tribunal did not decide whether support must be provided at the point of social engagement.

5. The First-tier Tribunal also failed to make sufficient findings about the frequency of difficulties relevant to other daily-living descriptors. Taken with the descriptor 9(c) error, that failure was material because a proper assessment might establish entitlement to the daily-living component. The rehearing must decide entitlement afresh, applying the present approach to descriptor 9(c), and must assess circumstances as at 23 April 2015. Later evidence is admissible if it relates to that date.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Allowed the claimant’s appeal, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision of 17 September 2015, and remitted the case for rehearing by a differently constituted tribunal.
• First-tier Tribunal: Allowed the appeal only to the extent of awarding the standard-rate mobility component under descriptor 11(e), and awarded no daily-living component.
• Secretary of State: Refused the personal independence payment claim on 23 April 2015; mandatory reconsideration did not alter that decision.