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

Section 83 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 generally excludes entitlement to personal independence payment after the relevant age, subject to regulatory exceptions. A claimant who has an award of PIP made before reaching that age may remain entitled where the award takes effect later. Where a later decision supersedes an existing award, regulation 27 of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 applies. If the current award contains no mobility component, the previous award can preserve entitlement only through the 12-month linking rule. Once that rule is unavailable, a subsequent deterioration in mobility cannot generate entitlement to the mobility component.

The appellant had received the higher-rate mobility component of disability living allowance and was transferred to PIP shortly before reaching 65. Her transfer award included the standard-rate mobility component. Following a planned review, the mobility component was removed because her assessed mobility attracted insufficient points. A later review accepted that her mobility had deteriorated and would ordinarily justify the standard rate, but the Secretary of State refused an award by reason of the age restrictions.

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed her appeal. The Upper Tribunal considered whether the relevant decision was governed by regulation 26, concerning a new claim after an interval, or regulation 27, concerning revision or supersession of an award, and whether any exception preserved entitlement.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal reached the correct result, although its reasoning was materially imperfect. Any error was therefore not material.
2. Section 83(1) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 barred entitlement to either PIP component after the appellant’s relevant age, unless an exception made under section 83(3) applied.
3. Regulation 25(a) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 applied to the transfer award. It includes a claimant whose PIP award was made before reaching the relevant age but whose entitlement commenced afterwards. The provision is not confined to cases where both the award and payment began before that age.
4. Regulation 26 did not govern the later decision. It applies where a previous PIP award has ended and the claimant makes a new claim after an interval, within the specified time limit. The later decision was instead a supersession of the existing daily-living-only award, so regulation 27 applied.
5. For regulation 27, the “original award” means the immediately preceding PIP award which falls to be revised or superseded. Regulation 27(4) operates as a linking rule where that award has no mobility component but a previous award included one, provided the previous entitlement ended no more than 12 months before the supersession.
6. The First Planned Review award was the relevant original award. It contained no mobility component, and more than 12 months had elapsed since the appellant’s previous mobility award. The linking rule therefore did not apply. The section 83 age exclusion consequently prevented a mobility award despite the later deterioration in her mobility.

The appeal was dismissed under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal from the First-tier Tribunal dismissed under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision of 8 May 2019 dismissed.