Evidence
In determining entitlement to PIP, issues may arise concerning the validity or relevance of evidence. Where there is conflicting evidence, a decision has to be made as to which should be given the greater weight. Whilst there has been PIP case law concerning evidence issues, case law from other disability, incapacity and limited capacity for work benefits may also be relevant.
NB - in Scotland, adult disability payment is replacing personal independence payment and Social Security Scotland has provided guidance in relation to evidence in Gathering supporting information for Adult Disability Payment and Understanding and interpreting supporting information for Adult Disability Payment.
Case law
Commentary: Whilst we don't yet have any commentary in relation to the case law items below, we'd love to hear from you if you'd like to contribute. Send us a suggestion and we’d be happy to incorporate it here. | Add commentary or suggest an edit.
-
Tribunal failed to give claimant opportunity to comment on website material it relied on to assess her disablement, and reached ‘perverse’ conclusion that she could carry out PIP activities ‘safely’
- [2024] UKUT 173 (AAC)
- UA-2024-000182-PIP
- NH v Secretary of Work and Pensions
-
When a claimant lacks capacity and has an appointee, a tribunal should consider the nature of the appointment and whether it provides evidence to support point-scoring PIP descriptors
- [2024] NI Com 27
- C17/23-24 (PIP)
- SB v Department for Communities (PIP)
-
Tribunal’s approach to oral and written evidence from claimant, that it considered lacked credibility, was not an error of law
- [2022] UKUT 248 (AAC)
- UA-2021-000155-PIP
- MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Tribunals hearing PIP appeals must be cautious not to infer from a claimant’s ability to engage with others in a very specific context that they would be able to carry out that task in other contexts
- [2021] UKUT 216 (AAC)
- CPIP/1627/2020
- AC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Adequacy of explanation required from tribunal for not seeking potentially relevant evidence from previous DLA award when making less advantageous PIP award
- [2021] UKUT 183 (AAC)
- CPIP/1748/2020
- MM-C v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (CPIP)
-
Whether new evidence about the distance a claimant covered when walking is admissible in an Upper Tribunal appeal in circumstances where a First-tier Tribunal incorrectly assessed that distance
- [2021] UKUT 35 (AAC)
- CPIP/2401/2019
- PR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Tribunals are not ordinarily required to give anything beyond brief reasons as to why they are not adjourning a PIP appeal in order to obtain DLA evidence
- [2020] UKUT 338 (AAC)
- CPIP/401/2020
- BH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Correct approach to assessing medical evidence if PIP assessment report has been carried out by publicly discredited Secretary of State appointed assessor
- [2020] UKUT 259 (AAC)
- CPIP/400/2017
- CM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Whether tribunal should have requested DLA evidence in PIP transfer claim appeal where there was no indication that claimant had ever been invited to request it
- [2020] UKUT 70 (AAC)
- CPIP/2836/2018
- CH (by TH) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
High Court holds that special rules for terminal illness, in case where claimant cannot demonstrate their death can be reasonably expected within six months, are ‘discriminatory’ and ‘manifestly without reasonable foundation’
- [2020] NIQB 53
- Cox, Re Application for Judicial Review
-
Tribunal failed to give adequate consideration to seeking medical evidence from DLA award in PIP transfer case
- [2019] UKUT 150 (AAC)
- NW v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Requirement for Secretary of State to provide relevant evidence of previous PIP claims / tribunal’s failure to pick up on ‘hints’ that there was a previous claim
- [2019] UKUT 27 (AAC)
- CPIP/2261/2018
- FJ v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Tribunal should consider whether there is need to separate out appellant’s direct evidence from that relayed by representative where there are inconsistencies
- [2018] UKUT 350 (AAC)
- CPIP/1035/2017
- I v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Tribunals are required to deal with evidence relating to ESA entitlement when used in support of a PIP appeal
- [2018] UKUT 216 (AAC)
- CPIP/1055/2018
- KW v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
What relevance a previous award of high rate mobility component DLA has for the ‘moving around’ descriptors under PIP
- [2018] UKUT 76 (AAC)
- CPIP/2748/2017
- AW v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Both Secretary of State and representatives should provide relevant evidence to the tribunal / requirement for tribunal to explain different outcome on PIP renewal claim
- [2017] UKUT 506 (AAC)
- CPIP/2589/2017
- BB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Circumstances that may require a tribunal to seek evidence relating to a previous DLA claim when determining a PIP appeal / DLA and PIP document retention policies
- [2017] UKUT 415 (AAC)
- CPIP/973/2017
- GD v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Evidence need not be medical to challenge a health care professional’s report / absence of complaint about health care professional is not significant
- [2017] UKUT 356 (AAC)
- CPIP/838/2017
- CF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
- Circumstances when a tribunal should consider adjourning to seek further medical evidence
- [2017] UKUT 351 (AAC)
- CPIP/958/2017
- MA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Functional difficulties must arise from a physical or mental condition and not from other personal conditions such as childcare responsibilities
- [2017] UKUT 317 (AAC)
- CPIP/663/2017
- SC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Limits of tribunal’s inquisitorial role when assessing prescribed medication / mobility activity 2 and requirement to consider reasonable wishes of claimant to move around
- [2017] UKUT 154 (AAC)
- CPIP/3622/2016
- PM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Responsibilities of representatives when providing evidence to First-tier Tribunals on behalf of clients
- [2016] UKUT 533 (AAC)
- CPIP/2354/2016
- JC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Requirement for tribunals to submit all medical evidence to critical analysis / when should DLA evidence be required in determining a PIP transfer appeal
- [2016] UKUT 416 (AAC)
- CPIP/1042/2016
- AP v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Descriptors including a ‘need’ for an aid or appliance, prompting, supervision or assistance, incorporate requirement to assess reasonableness of that need
- [2016] UKUT 250 (AAC)
- CPIP/1534/2015
- MB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
- First-tier Tribunal has power to direct a medical assessment
- [2016] UKUT 212 (AAC)
- CPIP/3544/2015
- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v DB
-
General telephone enquiry can trigger PIP transfer claim / No obligation to supply DLA evidence on a PIP transfer appeal
- [2016] UKUT 117 (AAC)
- CPIP/2225/2015
- DC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
- Tribunal must explain why it prefers medical evidence over claimant evidence
- [2016] UKUT 76 (AAC)
- CPIP/2651/2015
- MW v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
- Tribunal must resolve conflict between different sources of medical evidence
- [2015] UKUT 346 (AAC)
- UK/202/2015
- HB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)