ZM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)

Where a tribunal awards personal independence payment for a fixed term, its statement of reasons must explain why that duration was selected. The explanation need only be brief, but it must address the relevant circumstances, including the likely persistence of the claimant’s limiting conditions. The tribunal should also explain why an indefinite award, or a different fixed period, was inappropriate. A failure to give that explanation is an error of law.

The Secretary of State decided on 10 April 2024 that the appellant was not entitled to personal independence payment. On appeal, the First-tier Tribunal awarded the standard rate of the daily living component for a fixed period ending on 31 November 2026.

Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was limited to whether the First-tier Tribunal had adequately explained its choice of a three-year fixed-term award, given the appellant’s medical conditions. The central issue was whether the tribunal had sufficiently addressed the duration of the award under section 88 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision involved an error of law because its statement of reasons did not explain why a three-year fixed-term award was appropriate.
2. Under section 88(2) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, a PIP award is for a fixed term unless a fixed term would be inappropriate. Where a tribunal selects a fixed term, it must give reasons addressing the relevant circumstances, including the likely persistence of the claimant’s limiting conditions.
3. The reasons need not resolve the issue in detail. They must nevertheless explain why the selected period was appropriate, rather than a longer period or an indefinite award. The fact that the selected period was reasonably open on the evidence did not answer the separate question whether the tribunal had explained its choice.
4. The Upper Tribunal declined to substitute its own decision on the duration of the award. That issue was best determined by a three-person First-tier Tribunal with the relevant expertise. The decision was therefore set aside under section 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the appeal was remitted for an oral rehearing before a fresh tribunal.
5. The new tribunal was required to determine entitlement by reference to the appellant’s circumstances at the date of the Secretary of State’s decision, 10 April 2024. Section 12(8)(b) of the Social Security Act 1998 prevented it from taking into account circumstances that did not exist when that decision was made.

• First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support): On 13 February 2025, awarded the standard rate of the PIP daily living component for a fixed period, with no mobility component.
• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Allowed the appeal, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and remitted the case to a fresh tribunal for an oral rehearing.