TM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

A tribunal must assess whether it is fair to decide an appeal on the papers, even where the claimant requested that procedure. Its reasons must explain why the party lost on the main disputed issues and address the distinct factual and legal questions raised by each activity; repeated generic findings will rarely suffice. Evidence about the time needed to complete an activity must be addressed when deciding whether it can be done within a reasonable time under the The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013. Work-related interaction with children does not alone resolve a claimant’s ability to engage socially or with adults. Ability to drive does not determine ability to plan and follow journeys: the tribunal must assess different means of travel holistically.

TM appealed to the Upper Tribunal after the First-tier Tribunal refused her appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision that she was not entitled to Personal Independence Payment. The First-tier Tribunal decided the appeal on the papers, as TM had requested, and found that she qualified for no points under the daily living or mobility activities. The Upper Tribunal considered whether the First-tier Tribunal had given adequate reasons, whether it was fair to proceed without an oral hearing, and whether it had properly assessed washing and dressing, engaging with other people face to face, and planning and following journeys.

1. The appeal was allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision involved errors of law, was set aside, and the case was remitted for a fresh tribunal to reconsider at an oral hearing.

2. Although TM had requested a paper hearing, the First-tier Tribunal still had to decide whether it was fair to proceed without a hearing. It had to give reasons that did more than restate the procedural criteria. The tribunal gave no adequate explanation, and, because it intended to reject TM’s evidence on most activities, fairness required that she have a specific opportunity to attend and address its concerns. The judge applied BV v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2018] UKUT 444 and JP v SSWP [2011] UKUT 459 (AAC).

3. Reasons must explain why a party won or lost on the main issues and address the particular factual and legal questions for each activity. Reusing common text is not objectionable in itself, but generic findings copied across activities did not explain the conclusions reached in this case.

4. For washing and dressing, the First-tier Tribunal failed to address evidence about how long the activities took. It therefore did not adequately explain its conclusion that TM could complete them within a reasonable time, as required by regulation 4(2A) of the The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013.

5. For engaging with people face to face, the tribunal relied on TM’s work with vulnerable children but failed to assess her ability to engage socially or to account for the distinction between interacting with children and adults. The judge held that these omissions repeated errors identified in KW v SSWP [2024] UKUT 410 (AAC) and HA v SSWP (PIP) [2018] UKUT 56 (AAC).

6. For planning and following journeys, the tribunal treated TM’s ability to drive as determinative. It was required to assess holistically her ability to follow a route by different means, including on foot and by public transport, with no single means determinative. The judge applied SB v SSWP (PIP) [2019] UKUT 274 (AAC).

7. The case was remitted to a fresh First-tier Tribunal for an oral hearing. It must assess TM’s circumstances as they were on 15 October 2024, the date of the Secretary of State’s decision. An anonymity order was made to protect TM’s private life and health.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Allowed the appeal, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and remitted the case for reconsideration at an oral hearing: [2026] UKUT 266 (AAC) .
• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): On 12 August 2025, dismissed TM’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal of Personal Independence Payment. No citation for that decision is stated in the judgment.