CPAG search

Decision in brief

Test is of ability to engage with people generally, not just those the claimant knows well – ability to use a phone to send texts does not demonstrate an ability to engage with other people face-to-face

Decision in brief

Decision stands in the shoes of the HMRC decision maker – for example, a decision on an appeal against a decision under section 18 of the Tax Credits Act precludes HMRC from making another section 18 decision – but tribunal decision is capable of further and separate HMRC decisions if provided for by the Tax Credits Act – ie, under sections 19, 20 and (arguably) section 21

Note from CPAG

See also the article in Bulletin 264, p8

Decision in brief

Descriptors 8(a)–(d) refer to ability to read and understand written information in the claimant’s ‘native language’ – BSL is a language without written information – but a claimant may have more than one native language – claimant had grown up being exposed to the English language and could also communicate in English – if there are two native languages but only one has a written component then the test if of the claimant’s ability in that language

Decision in brief

If through assisting or supervising the other person was actually putting themselves at risk, that supervision or assistance should not be taken into account

Decision in brief

Descriptor will be satisfied if a claimant has a reasonable need to use incontinence pads (even on a precautionary basis) at might for the majority of the time, even if they are not in fact used by the claimant

Decision in brief

Raises concerns about observation of rules 2 and 24(2)(e) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 (need for parties to be able to participate full and for responses to state grounds for opposing the appeal) – implications for appellant to be able to prepare his or case before a hearing

Note from CPAG

See also the article in Bulletin 264, p8.

Decision in brief

Test regarding ‘social engagement’ for ESA, as set out in JC v SSWP (ESA) [2014] UKUT 352; [2015] AACR 6 is about a different test and does not apply – not required to consider ability to develop friendships

Note from CPAG

Permission has now been granted for appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Decision in brief

Tribunal erred in holding that actually being allocated a NINO is the only way to satisfy the NINO requirement – can also be satisfied (per section 13(1B)(b) Social Security Administration Act 1992) by supplying evidence or information so as to allow a NINO to be allocated – where regulation 9 of the Social Security (Crediting and Treatment of Contributions, and National Insurance Numbers) Regulations 2001 applies, if the evidential requirements there are not met, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence or information – if they are met, the applicant has provided sufficient evidence or information, unless the DWP has disclosed additional criteria which must also be met for a NINO to be allocated

Decision in brief

Concession by Secretary of State that lip reading is ‘not considered an acceptable way to interpret verbal communication’ – to be followed by new tribunal – it is ‘pointless to disagree with a Secretary of State who wishes to implement legislation in a way that is perhaps more generous to claimants than the legislation strictly allows’

Decision in brief

The decision notice and the statement of reasons should be capable of being read together so that it may be understood what the tribunal decided and why – CCR/3396/2000 and CIS/2345/2001 applied

Decision in brief

If descriptor 2(e) (needs assistance to be able to manage a therapeutic source to take nutrition) applies, that assistance cannot also be taken into account for Activity 3 – CSPIP/386/2015 and AS v SSWP (PIP) [2017] UKUT 104; [2017] AACR 31 applied, although the point may be revisited by a three-judge panel of the Upper Tribunal in a future decision

Decision in brief

If the deceased husband was in fact domiciled in the United Kingdom at the time of his second marriage, he could not under the law of England and Wales have contracted a valid polygamous marriage abroad (section 11(d) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973) – in that case, the second marriage was not valid under English and Welsh law, and issue of whether that marriage could now be regarded as monogamous was immaterial – fact that the second wife had been granted settled immigration by the Home Office cannot be decisive regarding bereavement benefit entitlement