Reliably
To be assessed as able to carry out an activity to the level described in a descriptor, a claimant must satisfy the descriptor “reliably”, that is: safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and in reasonable time.
Legislation
The meaning of "reliably" is defined in regulations.
Regulation 4(2A) of the main PIP regulations provides -
Where [a claimant's] ability to carry out an activity is assessed, [the claimant] is to be assessed as satisfying a descriptor only if [the claimant] can do so - (a) safely; (b) to an acceptable standard; (c) repeatedly; and (d) within a reasonable time period.
Regulation 4(4) of the main PIP regulations provides -
- "safely” means in a manner unlikely to cause harm to [the claimant] or to another person, either during or after completion of the activity;
- “repeatedly” means as often as the activity being assessed is reasonably required to be completed; and
- “reasonable time period” means no more than twice as long as the maximum period that a person without a physical or mental condition which limits that person’s ability to carry out the activity in question would normally take to complete that activity.
Source: Regulation 4 of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (SI.No.377/2013), and regulation 4 of SR.No.217/2016 in Northern Ireland.
See also the section 2.2 of the Personal Independence Payment assessment guide for assessment providers.
NB - in Scotland, adult disability payment is replacing personal independence payment and the meaning of reliably is found in regulation 7 of the Disability Assistance for Working Age People (Scotland) Regulations 2022 (SSI.No.54/2022).
See also Social Security Scotland's guidance Reliability criteria for Adult Disability Payment
Case law
Commentary: The undefined term ‘to an acceptable standard’ has been considered in a number of cases particularly in relation to how pain affects the ability to complete an activity reliably. In the unpublished case of CPIP/2377/2015 the effects of pain, its severity and frequency, and the extent of any rests, are all considered relevant to the question of whether a claimant can complete a mobility descriptor ‘to an acceptable standard’. The effects of pain are also considered in [2016] UKUT 326 (AAC) where Judge Markus holds that even if someone may be able to carry out an activity repeatedly and within a reasonable time, they still may not be able to complete it ‘to an acceptable standard’ if they do so with difficulties such as pain or breathlessness.
The meaning of 'safely' was considered in [2017] UKUT 105 (AAC) by a Three Judge Panel who found that it is not necessary to show that an occurrence of harm is 'more likely than not', but the likelihood of any harm should be weighed up against the severity of the consequences. | Add commentary or suggest an edit.
-
Tribunal ‘perversely’ concluded that claimant with chronic fatigue could prepare a simple meal with an aid based on ability to get herself to and from work, and prepare a single vegetable when seated
- [2024] UKUT 381 (AAC)
- UA-2024-001023-PIP
- AE v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Impact of pain must be considered when assessing whether claimant’s ability to mobilise over a certain distance is to ‘an acceptable standard’
- [2024] UKUT 338 (AAC)
- UA-2024-000699-PIP
- LB v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Upper Tribunal gives guidance on assessing the ability of a claimant who experiences seizures to carry out PIP activities ‘safely’
- [2024] UKUT 289
- UA-2023-001112-PIP
- AM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Tribunal erred in conflating test of whether claimant could carry out activity safely with test of whether descriptor satisfied more than 50 per cent of the time
- [2024] UKUT 211 (AAC)
- UA-2023-001449-PIP
- JT v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
-
Tribunal erred in failing to make sufficient findings of fact about the steps needed and the time taken by the appellant to manage his double incontinence in view of the PIP ‘acceptable standard’ and ‘reasonable time’ criteria
- [2024] UKUT 185 (AAC)
- UA-2023-001268-PIP
- MS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
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
-
Application of personal independence payment activities and descriptors to a claimant who is a ‘functioning alcoholic’
- [2021] UKUT 226 (AAC)
- CPIP/2229/2019
- DE 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)
-
Whether tribunal is always obliged to put perceived inconsistencies in evidence to claimant / whether tribunal is always obliged to make specific findings on regulation 4(2A) criteria
- [2021] UKUT 140 (AAC)
- CPIP/1495/2020
- SM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Consideration of eligibility for mobility component where claimant had history of some walking at airports when travelling to and from the UK
- [2020] UKUT 343 (AAC)
- CPIP/2851/2019
- LG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Interaction of activity 9 - engaging with other people face to face - and regulation 4(2A) - ability to carry out an activity reliably
- [2020] UKUT 186 (AAC)
- CPIP/1781/2019
- JT v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Whether consuming food in liquid form to avoid swallowing difficulties fits with defintion of ‘taking nutrition’ / relevance of pain and discomfort and reliability criterion ‘to an acceptable statndard’
- [2019] UKUT 270 (AAC)
- CPIP/381/2019
- PA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Secretary of State’s lip reading ‘concession’ is not overly-generous but is in fact the correct legal interpretation
- [2018] UKUT 376 (AAC)
- CPIP/315/2018
- P v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions (PIP)
- Assessing risk of harm to a claimant with hearing loss while washing and bathing
- [2018] UKUT 251 (AAC)
- CPIP/3528/2017
- SH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Pain when managing a compression bandage and the need to consider the reliability criteria under regulation 4
- [2018] UKUT 138 (AAC)
- CPIP/383/2018
- PM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Alcohol dependence and factors to consider when assessing a claimant’s ability to perform PIP functions
- [2017] UKUT 310 (AAC)
- CPIP/3126/2016
- SD v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
- Inability to read instructions or use timers may be relevant when considering activity 1
- [2017] UKUT 272 (AAC)
- CPIP/3739/2016
- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v DT (PIP)
-
Where a claimant satisfies a descriptor because they ‘cannot’ do something, then the ability to carry it out reliably does not apply
- [2017] UKUT 217 (AAC)
- CPIP/3656/2016
- AB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Extra time choosing clothes on the basis of appearance can be relevant to the test for daily living activity 6
- [2017] UKUT 171 (AAC)
- CPIP/3760/2016
- ML v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Choosing clean clothes and dressing to an acceptable standard / impulsive spending may satisfy descriptor for making complex budgeting decisions
- [2017] UKUT 156 (AAC)
- CPIP/3730/2016
- DP 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)
-
Risk of harm need not be ‘more likely than not’ when assessing safety under regulation 4 and need for supervision
- [2017] UKUT 105 (AAC)
- CPIP/1599/2016.
- RJ, GMcL and CS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v RJ (PIP)
-
Tribunals need not consider other descriptors once sufficient points have been added to award the enhanced rate of a PIP component
- [2016] UKUT 444 (AAC)
- CPIP/2337/2016
- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v GP (PIP)
-
Ability to mobilise to ‘an acceptable standard’ must include an assessment of the effects of pain
- [2016] UKUT 326 (AAC)
- CPIP/665/2016
- PS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Requirement to consider the ‘reliability’ criteria when assessing mobility descriptors / Whether a satnav can be an ‘orientation aid’ when following a route
- [2016] UKUT 304 (AAC)
- CPIP/239/2016
- RB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Effect of pauses and halts on ability to move around when applying PIP mobility descriptors
- [2016] UKUT 261 (AAC)
- CPIP/193/2016
- KN v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Ability to carry out an activity safely under regulation 4 is a distinct concept from requiring supervision for that activity
- [2016] UKUT 219 (AAC)
- CPIP/3573/2015
- SB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Use of microwave to heat ready prepared food is not sufficient / Importance of applying regulations 4 and 7
- [2016] UKUT 150 (AAC)
- CPIP/1418/2015
- LC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)
-
Remote risk of adverse event does not mean activity cannot be carried out safely / PIP descriptors satisfied even if only apply for part of day
- [2015] UKUT 643 (AAC)
- CPIP/2287/2015
- CE v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
- Meaning of ‘engage with other people’ in activity 9, and its interaction with regulations 4 and 7
- [2015] UKUT 215 (AAC)
- UK/5205/2014
- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v AM