Ahmed Bashir (by his appointee, Faryal Bashir) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Where a tribunal accepts evidence bearing directly on a statutory disability criterion but finds that criterion unmet, it must explain clearly why the evidence does not satisfy it. Oral evidence need not be corroborated before it can be accepted. For severe behavioural problems under the DLA mobility rules, “extreme” bears its ordinary meaning, and whether conduct requires regular physical restraint depends on the circumstances.

On the First-tier Tribunal’s accepted findings, the Upper Tribunal found the relevant criteria met and set aside and remade the decision.

Ahmed Bashir, a child with autism, received the highest-rate care component and lower-rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance. His mother and appointee sought a supersession to award the higher-rate mobility component. The Secretary of State refused, and the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 24 February 2025.

The Secretary of State accepted that Ahmed was severely mentally impaired and met the day and night conditions. The dispute concerned whether his behaviour met the severe-behavioural-problems criterion. On appeal, the Secretary of State supported the challenge but sought remittal; Ahmed’s representative asked the Upper Tribunal to remake the decision. The central questions were whether the First-tier Tribunal gave adequate reasons and whether the accepted findings established the disputed criteria.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision involved a material error of law and was set aside under section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The Upper Tribunal remade the decision under section 12(2)(b)(ii).
2. Under section 73(3) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and regulation 12(5) of the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991, the issue was whether Ahmed displayed severe behavioural problems. The Secretary of State accepted severe mental impairment and the day and night conditions. “Extreme” in regulation 12(5)(a) bears its ordinary meaning, “wholly out of the ordinary”, as explained in SSWP v MG (DLA) [2012] 429 (AAC) at [22]. What amounts to physical restraint is fact-specific; a firm grip may suffice for a young child but not an older child, as the same authority explained at [24].
3. The First-tier Tribunal accepted evidence that Ahmed had no sense of danger, ran off in any direction, tripped and sustained cuts and bruises, needed strong straps, and was impulsive around other children. It did not adequately explain why those accepted facts failed to show extreme disruptive behaviour. It also failed to explain why regular physical restraint was not established, despite accepting that Ahmed needed strong straps and might run into the road without responding to “stop”.
4. The Tribunal’s treatment of his mother’s evidence also suggested that it required documentary corroboration. A tribunal may assess reliability, weigh evidence and resolve conflicts, but there is no general requirement for corroboration. The evidence was described as more severe than that in the documents, and accepting it could have changed the outcome.
5. The Upper Tribunal considered that the interests of justice favoured remaking the decision on the First-tier Tribunal’s findings. It found that Ahmed’s behaviour was disruptive and extreme, and that he regularly required intervention and physical restraint to prevent injury or property damage. All the severe mental impairment criteria were met. The appeal was allowed, and the Secretary of State’s decision was set aside and remade: Ahmed was entitled to the highest-rate care component from 3 March 2022 to 8 April 2033 and the higher-rate mobility component from 9 April 2021 to 8 April 2033.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) — Allowed the appeal, set aside the First-tier Tribunal decision and remade the decision. The First-tier Tribunal had refused permission to appeal; the Upper Tribunal granted permission.
• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) — On 24 February 2025, dismissed Ahmed’s appeal and confirmed the Secretary of State’s decision.