Kirsty Bell v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

A tribunal deciding entitlement to limited capability for work-related activity must give adequate reasons for its assessment of the claimant’s relevant activity descriptors and of any substantial risk from requiring work-related activity. Its reasons should identify the evidence supporting material findings, address significant conflicts in that evidence and explain what activities the claimant might reasonably be expected to undertake. A generic list of possible activities does not, without more, establish the claimant-specific evidential basis for those findings. A tribunal must also provide requested reasons in accordance with the applicable procedural rules and cannot add conditions to the right to request them.

Kirsty Bell appealed to the Upper Tribunal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) dated 16 June 2025. The First-tier Tribunal had allowed her appeal in part, finding that she had limited capability for work but not limited capability for work-related activity. Her appeal raised concerns about the tribunal’s findings on her driving and use of a sat nav, its consideration of activity descriptors and substantial risk, and the evidence for the work-related activities she might be required to undertake. Her personal independence payment awards were also said to bring another activity descriptor into issue.

The central question was whether the First-tier Tribunal had adequately considered the relevant evidence and explained its decision.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was set aside and the appeal remitted to an entirely freshly constituted First-tier Tribunal for redetermination after an oral hearing.
2. The First-tier Tribunal materially erred by relying on a finding that Miss Bell was driving and could use a sat nav in October 2024 without grappling with contrary evidence or explaining why it preferred the evidence on which it relied. The finding formed part of its reasoned basis for concluding that she did not satisfy descriptors in Schedule 7 to the Universal Credit Regulations 2013.
3. The tribunal also had to address the extent to which Miss Bell satisfied relevant descriptors in Schedule 6 and explain why it awarded only the points it did. Her grounds were not apparently confined to two activities, and her personal independence payment awards arguably brought another activity into issue. The extent of her limitations was also relevant to a proper assessment of substantial risk under paragraph 4 of Schedule 9. The tribunal’s reasons did not adequately address these matters.
4. In assessing substantial risk, the tribunal needed to explain the evidential basis for its findings about the work-related activities Miss Bell might reasonably be expected to undertake. The available documents listed possible activities and summarised KC & MC v SSWP (ESA), but contained no evidence tailored to Miss Bell. The tribunal did not explain, for example, its findings about what her work coach would take into account or why setting up an email account represented the most demanding activity, particularly when the list also included attending a work placement.
5. Miss Bell had a right under rule 34(5) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 to request reasons, subject to the requirements in that rule. The First-tier Tribunal could not impose an additional confirmation condition. The Upper Tribunal described the condition as at best unwise and, following OU v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2024] UKUT 223 (AAC), found no proper or lawful basis for it.
6. The Upper Tribunal did not decide whether the Secretary of State needed permission to advance separate grounds in response to the appeal. That issue was left open because the appeal was being allowed on other grounds. The fresh tribunal was to assess the evidence and decide the appeal afresh; the Upper Tribunal’s decision expressed no view on whether Miss Bell would ultimately succeed.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Appeal allowed; the First-tier Tribunal’s decision was set aside and the appeal remitted to a freshly constituted tribunal for an oral hearing.
• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): On 16 June 2025, allowed the appeal in part, finding limited capability for work but not limited capability for work-related activity. The Upper Tribunal held that decision contained material errors of law.