Caselaw

Key Points for Welfare Rights Officers This decision confirms and applies Social Security Scotland v VH (2025 UT 52). Where a superseding ADP determination is made after the decision under appeal, the First-tier Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to the period before the new determination takes effect. The tribunal cannot award entitlement beyond that date, even […]

Key Points for Welfare Rights Officers Overview This Upper Tribunal decision concerns an Adult Disability Payment (ADP) appeal where the claimant challenged the First-tier Tribunal’s assessment under: The Upper Tribunal ultimately granted permission to appeal only in relation to Mobility Activity 2, allowed the appeal on that issue, quashed that part of the decision and

Key Points for Welfare Rights Officers Overview This Upper Tribunal decision concerns an Adult Disability Payment (ADP) appeal where the First-tier Tribunal (FTS) awarded Mobility Activity 2 descriptor 2b (50–200 metres) but failed to adequately explain why a higher descriptor was not appropriate. The Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal, allowed the appeal, quashed the

Key Points for Welfare Rights Officers This Upper Tribunal decision is useful in ADP mobility appeals, particularly where the First-tier Tribunal has failed to properly apply the reliability criteria in regulation 7 of the Disability Assistance for Working Age People (Scotland) Regulations 2022. Background Upper Tribunal’s Findings The Upper Tribunal found an arguable error of

A recent Upper Tribunal decision, SSWP v NC (UA‑2025‑SCO‑000070‑UC), provides an important clarification for advisers supporting clients whose Universal Credit (UC) entitlement ends due to absence from Great Britain. What Happened? The claimant had been receiving UC since 2019. Her appointee notified DWP that she would be abroad for just over a month, from 13

A new Upper Tribunal decision has provided important clarification on how First‑tier Tribunals should approach evidence relating to claimants’ employment when determining Personal Independence Payment (PIP) entitlement. The case SS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP), published on 27 January 2026, highlights serious errors in the way the tribunal balanced employment evidence

Whether a tenancy was “commercial” for the purposes of calculating the housing costs element in a Universal Credit claim. DB v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Decision Date: 18 October 2025 Issue: Whether a tenancy was “commercial” for the purposes of calculating the housing costs element in a Universal Credit claim. Key

PIP case law can help interpret ADP decisions since many descriptors are similar. But ADP is governed by Scottish law, so tribunals aren’t bound by PIP rulings. It’s guidance, not gospel. EW v SSWP [2025] UKUT 307 (AAC) – The Upper Tribunal overturned a PIP decision, ruling that the First-tier Tribunal wrongly dismissed EW’s fatigue