JM v SSWP

A tribunal assessing entitlement to Personal Independence Payment must consider the evidence holistically, make sufficient findings of fact, and give adequate reasons for accepting or rejecting material evidence. It must address whether activities can be performed safely, to the required standard and with any reasonably required aid.

It may draw inferences from performance of another activity only where the activities are genuinely comparable, including in their cognitive and physical demands and regularity. A claimant’s ability to calculate a price does not alone establish an ability to make a budgeting decision; the claimant must understand the outcome and implications of that decision.

The appellant, who has autism spectrum disorder and significant social anxiety, appealed a First-tier Tribunal decision on her claim for Personal Independence Payment. The First-tier Tribunal had awarded the standard mobility component but no daily-living component.

She contended that the tribunal had given inadequate reasons and had failed properly to consider functional evidence concerning preparing food, reading, and making budgeting decisions. The Secretary of State supported the appeal.

The Upper Tribunal considered whether the First-tier Tribunal had made sufficient findings of fact, applied the reliability requirements in the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, and adequately explained its conclusions.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal had made material errors of law. Its decision was set aside and the appeal was remitted for a complete rehearing before a differently constituted First-tier Tribunal.

2. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled to assess the weight of competing evidence, but it had to investigate the evidence holistically, make sufficient findings, and explain rationally why it preferred one account. It had not adequately explained its rejection of evidence that the appellant required supervision and prompting when preparing food, including evidence that she had burned herself and needed reminders about hot food.

3. The tribunal's inference that the appellant could prepare a simple meal from her GCSEs, video-game use, online activity and prospective driving lessons was inadequately reasoned. Applying the persuasive guidance in C25/18-19(PIP), an inference from one activity to another requires genuine comparability, including the relevant cognitive or physical demands and regularity. The cited activities did not evidently demonstrate an ability to prepare and cook a meal safely under regulation 4(2A) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013.

4. On reading, the tribunal had failed in its inquisitorial duty to establish whether a blue overlay or other aid was reasonably required. Its reliance on the appellant not using overlays at college did not answer the material question, particularly given evidence of a laptop with a blue background, large font and additional support.

5. On budgeting, the tribunal had failed to apply the guidance in SE v SSWP (PIP) [2021] UKUT 1 (AAC). Making a simple budgeting decision requires more than performing a calculation. It requires sufficient understanding of the outcome and implications to decide on that basis. The tribunal had not sufficiently examined whether the appellant's difficulties arose from autism spectrum disorder rather than age or limited experience.

6. The new tribunal must make its own findings on all relevant evidence. It must not rely on the set-aside tribunal's findings or conclusions, and the Upper Tribunal expressed no view on the appellant's eventual entitlement or rate of award.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Allowed the appellant's appeal on a point of law, set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision, and remitted the appeal for rehearing.
• First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support): On 19 December 2023, allowed the appeal against the Secretary of State's decision and awarded the standard rate of the mobility component.