JT v SSWP

JT v SSWP

The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by failing to explicitly consider and apply the 'safely' requirement under Regulation 4(2A) (a) in relation to Activity 5, and by not making sufficient findings of fact regarding the risk of harm and the need for an aid. The FTT conflated the requirements of Regulations 4 and 7, applying the incorrect legal test. These errors were material and warranted setting aside the decision and remitting the case for rehearing.

Parties
Appellant: JT; Respondent: SSWP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Social Security Appeal / Upper Tribunal Appeal From First Tier Tribunal
Outcome
Decision of the First-tier Tribunal set aside; appeal remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted First-tier Tribunal.
Legal Topics
Personal Independence Payment (pip), Tribunal Procedure, Error of Law, Disability Benefits
Social Security Law Administrative Law Personal Independence Payment (pip) Tribunal Procedure Error of Law Disability Benefits

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JT

Appellant

SSWP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Social Security Appeal / Upper Tribunal Appeal From First Tier Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law in its application of Regulation 4(2A) (a) 'safely' and Regulation 7 of the Social Security (PIP) Regulations 2013 in assessing entitlement to PIP for Activity 5 (Managing toilet needs or incontinence)
  2. 2 Whether the FTT made sufficient findings of fact regarding the need for an aid (grab rail) and the risk of harm

Ratio Decidendi

The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by failing to explicitly consider and apply the 'safely' requirement under Regulation 4(2A) (a) in relation to Activity 5, and by not making sufficient findings of fact regarding the risk of harm and the need for an aid. The FTT conflated the requirements of Regulations 4 and 7, applying the incorrect legal test. These errors were material and warranted setting aside the decision and remitting the case for rehearing.

Court Disposition

Decision of the First-tier Tribunal set aside; appeal remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted First-tier Tribunal.

Orders

  • The appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision of 20th January 2023 is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for re-determination.
  • The Tribunal panel must not include any member of the previous panel.