This appeal relates to personal independence payment, which is a non-means tested allowance paid to certain people with long term health problems or disability. The appeal’s focus is upon one of the markers used to determine whether a claimant’s ability to live his or her daily life is limited, by his or her physical or mental condition, to such an extent as to generate an entitlement to personal independence payment (‘PIP’). Various ‘daily living activities’ are examined as markers, and the one in question here is ‘engaging with other people face to face’.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and the matter remitted to the FTT for determination in accordance with the guidance given.
‘Engaging with people face to face’ takes many forms, as can the assistance needed for the claimant’s engagement to occur. A narrow and technical approach to the words ‘social support’ (9c) is unwarranted, and inconsistent with the objective of a benefit which is understandable and reaches those needing support to live independently.
What brings the claimant within descriptor 9c rather than 9b is that, to be able to engage with others, he or she needs the support to come from someone ‘trained or experienced in assisting people to engage in social situations’ i.e. the support will only be effective if delivered by someone who is not just familiar with the claimant, but also trained/experienced in assisting engagement in social situations.
Careful scrutiny of the facts may be necessary to determine whether descriptor 9c applies, including probing the information provided by sensitive questions and, where support is already being provided by family/friends, exploring how they have come to know what to do, whether that help could come from any well-meaning friend or family member, and what additional help (if any) is required.
Descriptor 9c is not ‘limited to cases where a claimant needs social support actually during the face to face engagement. Given that social support is likely to take many different forms, depending on the individual needs of the claimant, it is undesirable to attempt to prescribe, in the abstract, which other forms of support will be sufficient. It will be a question of fact and degree, and is something that will have to be worked out on a case by case basis, by those with expertise in making assessments and decisions in relation to claims, keeping the wording of the provision firmly in mind.’
Judges:
Lady Hale, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Sales
Citations:
2019 GWD 23-373, [2019] PTSR 1476, 2019 SLT 983, [2019] UKSC 34, 2019 SCLR 891, [2020] 1 All ER 829, 2019 SC (UKSC) 47, UKSC 2017/0215
Links:
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2019 Apr 09 am Video, SC 2019 Apr 09 pm Video
Statutes:
Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, Welfare Reform Act 2012
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Citing:
Appeal from – The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MMcK SCS 24-Aug-2017
(Extra Division, Inner House) Appeal by the Secretary of State against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) raising the question of what is meant by ‘social support’ as that expression is used in Activity 9 descriptor c . .
Cited – EG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pip) (Personal Independence Payment – Daily Living Activities – Activity 7: Communicating Verbally) UTAA 6-Mar-2017
Activity 7 is limited to assessing speech and hearing; it does not include the ability to communicate by means such as text. It must be considered in the light of the activities that a claimant might undertake, but not as they may be limited due to . .
Cited – Hickey v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 20-Apr-2018
Appeal from refusal of Personal Independence Payment
Held: Factors set out in relation to ‘engaging socially’ are nevertheless relevant to the consideration of a person’s ability to engage with other people face to face. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Benefits
Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.639672