JAT v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

When assessing personal independence payment under daily living activity 9, a tribunal must undertake a holistic assessment of the claimant’s ability to engage with other people face to face.

The assessment must consider a range of interactions. It cannot be confined to the claimant’s ability to engage with familiar people, such as friends or neighbours. The tribunal must address, where relevant, how the claimant would engage with people unknown to them. Failure to do so may constitute an error of law where the omitted issue could affect entitlement under the relevant descriptor.

The appellant challenged a decision of the First-tier Tribunal, which had considered her entitlement to personal independence payment. The tribunal found that she had paranoid schizophrenia and relied, in assessing daily living activity 9, on her ability to engage with neighbours who were her friends.

Permission to appeal was granted on the arguable basis that the tribunal had failed to consider descriptors 9(b) and 9(c), including the principles identified in HA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2018] UKUT 56 (AAC). The Secretary of State supported the appeal and accepted that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law. The central issue was whether the assessment of the appellant’s ability to engage with other people was unlawfully narrow.

1. The appeal was allowed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel of the Social Entitlement Chamber for reconsideration.
2. The Upper Tribunal adopted the reasoning relied on when permission to appeal was granted and the Secretary of State’s submissions. The First-tier Tribunal had adopted an unduly narrow approach to the assessment of the appellant’s ability to engage with other people.
3. The tribunal had relied on the appellant’s ability to engage with neighbours who were her friends. It had not determined whether those neighbours were already known to her, nor addressed how she would engage with people unknown to her. That omission was material because the appellant’s evidence identified interactions with unfamiliar people as presenting the greatest difficulty.
4. Following and applying the approach in HA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2018] UKUT 56 (AAC), the assessment required a holistic consideration of a range of interactions. It was insufficient to base the assessment solely on interactions with familiar persons.
5. The omission was capable of affecting entitlement under descriptor 9(c), which concerned requiring social support to engage with other people. An award under that descriptor would have enabled the appellant to reach the qualifying threshold. The Upper Tribunal stressed that success of the appeal disclosed an error of law only and gave no indication of the eventual outcome on rehearing.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): The appeal from the First-tier Tribunal was allowed. The decision dated 19 September 2024 was set aside and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel for reconsideration.
• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): The tribunal had determined the appellant’s personal independence payment appeal at Reading on 19 September 2024. Its decision was found to contain an error of law.