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 as just work-related. It should’ve considered her ability to function after work, when it was reasonable for her to perform daily tasks. A win for fairer assessments of real-life impact.
Case Overview
Issue: The appeal concerned how to properly assess a claimant’s ability to perform activities under the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Regulations, particularly where the claimant reports fatigue and a need for prompting due to a health condition.
Background: The First-tier Tribunal (FtT) had found that the claimant’s fatigue was not a symptom of her health condition, but rather a result of working full-time.
Upper Tribunal Decision: The FtT’s approach was flawed. The Upper Tribunal held that the claimant’s ability should be assessed at the times when it is reasonable for her to carry out the activities—including after a full day’s work. It was reasonable for her to work, and therefore her functional limitations post-work must be considered.
Legal Findings
The FtT made an error of law by failing to consider the claimant’s condition in the context of her daily routine. The decision was set aside under section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The case was remitted to a new FtT panel for rehearing.
Judge Church finds that the FTT’s approach is not consistent with precedent, and cites the following cases –