GD v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

When assessing mobility under regulation 4 of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, a tribunal must make sufficiently precise findings about both the distance travelled and the time taken. It must also address the number and timing of breaks, their duration, and whether the activity can be repeated. Findings about distance alone, time alone, or a general description such as walking slowly are insufficient to assess whether the activity is performed to an acceptable standard and within a reasonable time period. A paper-hearing tribunal may adjourn for an oral hearing or written questions if further information is needed.

The claimant’s personal independence payment was reduced following a supersession decision based on a face-to-face healthcare assessment. The First-tier Tribunal upheld four daily living points and awarded four mobility points for moving around, but rejected entitlement under the claimant’s previous mobility descriptor.

The claimant appealed to the Upper Tribunal. Permission was granted on an arguable error of law concerning the assessment of mobility activity 2. The central issue was whether the First-tier Tribunal had made adequate findings to apply the statutory requirements concerning safe, acceptable, repeated performance within a reasonable time period.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal decision dated 17 April 2023 was set aside and the case was remitted for a completely fresh determination of both components.
2. The First-tier Tribunal erred in law in its assessment of moving around. It referred to evidence that the claimant could walk for particular periods, cover particular distances, and walk with breaks, but failed to make findings connecting time and distance. Both were required to assess walking speed for the purposes of regulation 4(2A)(d), and whether the activity was performed to an acceptable standard under regulation 4(2A)(b).
3. The tribunal also failed to determine how many breaks were required, how soon each break was needed in terms of time and distance, how long each break lasted, and how soon the claimant could repeat the activity. Its conclusion that walking slowly supported distances exceeding 50 metres was unexplained. It also failed to give sufficient consideration to evidence that the claimant arrived drenched in sweat.
4. The statutory assessment required findings directed to the claimant’s ability as actually performed, including the requirements of being safe, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and within a reasonable time period. A short observation of walking 30 metres without breathlessness did not, without further findings, resolve those issues.
5. Although the hearing had been conducted on paper, the First-tier Tribunal could have adjourned for an oral hearing or put written questions if further information was required. The case was remitted to a freshly constituted First-tier Tribunal, with no member of the original panel participating.

• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): On 17 April 2023, awarded four daily living points and four mobility points and dismissed the appeal.
• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal decision was set aside and both components were remitted for redetermination entirely afresh.