ADP Case Collapses from Exhaustion After Tribunal Ignores Fatigue

/ Caselaw, Upper Tribunal Scotland / By

Below is a detailed briefing note for advisers on UTS/AS/25/0130 — GM v Social Security Scotland [2026] UT 11, written in a professional format suitable for internal welfare rights use.

Briefing Note for Advisers

GM v Social Security Scotland [2026] UT 11

Reference: UTS/AS/25/0130
Decision Date: 26 January 2026

1. Overview of the Decision

The Upper Tribunal held that the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) made an error of law by failing to properly consider the impact of the claimant’s fatigue and pain on their ability to complete activities relevant to Adult Disability Payment (ADP) daily living and mobility components.

The claimant argued that these symptoms significantly limited their functional ability. However, the FtT did not address whether the claimant could carry out tasks reliably—a key statutory test that includes safely, repeatedly, within a reasonable time, and to an acceptable standard.

2. Key Points of Law

2.1 Reliability Criteria

ADP, like PIP, requires assessment not simply of whether a claimant can perform an activity, but whether they can do so reliably.

In this case, the Upper Tribunal found that the FtT failed to make adequate findings on:

  • Fluctuating symptoms, particularly fatigue and pain
  • Whether activities could be completed reliably across the day/week
  • Whether any ability demonstrated masked adverse consequences, such as risk of exacerbation
  • Whether the claimant could sustain activity without disproportionate fatigue

2.2 Errors of Law

The Tribunal’s shortcomings included:

  • Overlooking material evidence relating to pain and fatigue
  • Not applying the full reliability test
  • Insufficient reasoning to justify the conclusions reached
  • Potentially misdirecting itself on the meaning of “ability” within the ADP framework

As a result, the decision was set aside.

3. Case Summary for Practical Use

3.1 Facts Relevant to Advisers

  • Claimant experienced persistent pain and significant fatigue, affecting daily living and mobility.
  • The FtT acknowledged some limitations but did not translate the evidence into proper ADP descriptors.
  • No analysis was carried out on whether the claimant could perform tasks to an acceptable and sustainable standard.
  • Upper Tribunal emphasised that reliability is not optional — it is intrinsic to every descriptor.

3.2 Outcome

The Upper Tribunal concluded that:

  • The FtT’s decision contained an error of law.
  • The case was returned for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted FtT panel.

4. Implications for Advisers

This case reinforces important practice points:

4.1 Always Emphasise Reliability in Evidence

Encourage claimants to explain:

  • How long they can perform an activity
  • Whether it worsens symptoms
  • How often they can repeat it
  • Whether it leads to post-exertional effects such as delayed pain or fatigue

4.2 Highlight Fluctuating Conditions

Tribunals must evaluate functional ability across the majority of days—not just on “good” days or based on isolated observations.

4.3 Document Secondary Effects

Pain, fatigue, dizziness, and recovery time are central to ADP assessments.

Poor consideration of these factors now clearly constitutes an error of law.

5. Practical Tips for Representing Claimants

  • Use diaries or symptom logs to demonstrate variability and aftereffects.
  • Ask targeted questions:
    • “What happens after you try to do X?”
    • “How long does it take to recover?”
    • “Can you do it again the same day?”
  • Prepare written submissions referencing the reliability criteria explicitly.
  • Challenge tribunal findings where these issues are ignored—this decision strengthens those arguments.

6. Why This Case Matters

This judgment is especially useful for advisers working with claimants who have:

  • Chronic pain
  • ME/CFS
  • Fibromyalgia
  • Conditions with fatigue as a major symptom
  • Fluctuating physical or mental health conditions

It confirms that tribunals must thoroughly examine reliability, not merely tick off whether the claimant can theoretically perform an activity.

GM v Social Security Scotland should now be cited whenever:

  • A tribunal disregards fatigue/pain
  • A tribunal relies solely on observed behaviour
  • A decision lacks detail on sustainability or repeatability
  • Evidence of post‑exertional decline is not addressed

7. Reference