The Upper Tribunal (UT) has decided the enhanced rate of the mobility component of PIP will now be available to more claimants with mental health difficulties than previously following a case brought by Kester Disability Rights with legal representation from Matthew Fraser and Claudia Hyde of Landmark Chambers.

The UT decided those who can only get out with support, but who experience substantial difficulties doing so, can score 12 points instead of the 10 frequently awarded by the DWP and tribunals.

The Government argued that, if such claimants were not going out very much at all due to psychological distress, they should get the lower rate on the basis they could not go out on the majority of days. But the Upper Tribunal found,

“The test in regulation 7(2) does not ask what the claimant has done in practice, rather it asks the decision-maker to consider in relation to each day of the required period, whether it is likely that the claimant would have met the descriptor if they were being assessed on this day and (where relevant) if they had available to them the assistance contemplated by the descriptor in question at that time” (paragraph 119(k)).

So PIP assessments should be geared to finding out what support a person needs, and if such support would be effective, which would make them a much more positive experience.

The Upper Tribunal stipulates at paragraph 119(f), “Whether the regulation 4(2A) standard is met involves an objective assessment but must be understood and applied in the context of the legislative purpose of enabling people with medical conditions that limit their ability to perform the activity, to receive the support they require and to participate as fully as possible in everyday life".

The three-judge panel also establishes a mandatory order for assessing the mobility activity 1 descriptors: 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.f, and then 1.e. In doing so, the panel departs from the previous ruling in MH v SSWP (PIP) UKUT 531 (AAC), which was often quoted by the DWP in support of its belief that a very high bar for mental health based claims for the mobility component was in place

Noting that MH creates a “wholly artificial” division between physical and mental conditions, the UT decided that assessing 1.f first allows for a holistic assessment of the entirety of a claimant's physical and psychological conditions. This should ensure decision-makers properly assess if a claimant can follow a route with support (1.f) before concluding they cannot undertake any journey at all due to overwhelming distress (1.e).

The ruling will therfore help not only those with mental illness, but also those whose mental health difficulties combine with other conditions, such as sensory impairment.

You can read the full judgement and a helpful summary here: https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/1-ah-2-ak-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip-2026-ukut-50-aac 

Helen Derici (61), forced to retire as a teacher in her 40’s due to conditions causing chronic pain, has won a 10 year battle against the DWP.

The DWP removed Helen’s Disability Living Allowance (DLA) in 2016 after she appeared in a 2015 Panorama documentary about opioid painkillers - “Hooked on Painkillers”. She was filmed on a beach near her home in Cornwall and after ‘surveillance’, it was alleged this indicated a dramatic improvement in Helen’s functioning.

Helen had been prescribed high doses of painkillers to combat the pain she was in. She underwent a withdrawal programme involving the replacement of the opiates with methadone. This improved her mental state, including her motivation, but her pain levels from her physical disabilities, the basis on which she was paid DLA, remained the same.

Medical evidence before the social security tribunal and DWP included Helen’s Pain Management Consultant stating, “Opioid reduction and exercise are 2 of our central recommendations for patients with chronic pain issues and it is extremely unhelpful to us and the patients if in following these suggestions, patients are penalised…”.

However, the DWP accused her of benefit fraud and demanded repayment of nearly £10,000 and refused to pay her any more DLA. Two appeal tribunals endorsed the DWP’s approach but Helen continued to fight the case, even after her representative died. Independent representative, Nick Dilworth, heroically kept the case alive beyond the spell of his own life.

So in 2023 Helen was able to instruct Kester Disability Rights (KDR) to pick up where Nick was forced to leave off and supported her to appeal for a second time to the Upper Tribunal. With the help of legal representation from Alex Shattock of Landmark Chambers the Upper Tribunal agreed in August 2025 the First-tier Tribunal had decided Helen’s case wrongly, ordering a further re-hearing.

On 3 February 2026 the Truro First-tier tribunal was due to hear Helen’s appeal for the third time, but the DWP conceded in the face of the written case put by Alex Shattock from Landmark Chambers.

Helen said, “The DWP robbed me of my 50’s, making me out to be dishonest and a fraud when in fact I had a painful condition that forced me to retire very early from the profession I loved. I am relieved it’s all over so I can start living again”.

Kester Dean, founder of KDR said, “This was the worse case I’ve seen in 30 years of advice work. There was no basis for the removal of Helen’s DLA, let alone ordering her to repay it. We have written to Helen’s MP asking him to take matters up with the Minister for Disabled People, Stephen Timms, about the misuse of surveillance that is causing so many people to live in fear. What happened to Helen is many disabled social security claimants worse nightmare. A nightmare that would never have ended had Helen not had the courage and determination to keep fighting”.

More and more social security claimants are having to rely on appeal tribunals to get what they are entitled to.  But it is not an easy process to cope with.

We have produced a Tribunal Guide  to either help you do your own appeal, or to understand what to expect if you have instructed KDR.  

Tribunals are increasingly taking a tough line on existing awards appeals, with several claimants coming to us having been warned that they would put their whole award at risk if they proceeded.  That is another way of saying, "don't waste any more of our time", but tribunals are not infallible and it appears arguable that warnings may be over-used in an overloaded system.  

Generally, it feels a lot more formal than it was, "back in the day", perhaps an inevitable result of bringing social security into the wider courts system.  This change was coupled with calling tribunal chairs "judges", which makes no sense as the other two members of a three member panel have the same standing, but are not called judges. 

All trends are towards making professional representation more and more important.  We find ourselves increasingly having to ask for help from barristers.  Fortunately we have excellent support from Landmark Chambers, who we find are the leading chambers for social security.  Without them we would have been unable to cope with a recent Three Judge Upper Tribunal hearing regarding the correct approach to mobility activity 1 for mental health based claims, the outcome of which is expected next year.  We will share that when available.  It will help clarify the law for better or worse.  

An interesting development of KDR work over the last few years has been our development of official error corrections of benefits payments. These occur when a mistake by an official acting for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) deprives a claimant of their entitlement. The usual process is to apply to the DWP for the error to be corrected and then, if it’s not, to appeal. Unfortunately it is very far from straightforward with some ultimately successful cases being struck out and then reinstated along the way.

The most common kind of Official Error for Personal Independence Payment (PIP )is when an unlawfully harsh interpretation of the PIP scheme is implemented. Such practices can result in the Upper Tribunal ruling a different approach is required in law than the one previously taken by the DWP.

The most striking of these in recent times was the 2017 decision ruling that “safely” as defined in regulation 4(2A) and 4(4) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 does not mean something being "more likely than not" but rather the severity of the harm that could occur also has to be taken into account (RJ, GMcL and CS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v RJ (PIP) [2017] UKUT 105 (AAC)).

This forced the DWP to launch a reviews program often referred to as "LEAP", standing for Legal Entitlement and Administrative Practices. This has only covered claimants actually awarded PIP and whether they should have been awarded it as a higher rate. However, it may be that people without any award at all should also be benefiting from this program but are not currently. We are keen to hear from epileptic, deaf and severely visually impaired PIP claimants who believe they were unlawfully deprived of PIP prior to 9th of March 2017, perhaps only getting it on a later reclaim or not getting it at all.

Please note that for any application to correct an old claim to be successful there has to be a very clear error of law by officials. A standard refusal of a claim cannot be remedied as a normal appeal would be out of time. If you did appeal at the time and lost then no correction will be possible.

The Upper Tribunal has awarded the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) to a KDR client with severe ADHD with low IQ, speech and language difficulties, behavioural issues, anxiety, low self-esteem and autistic spectrum disorder traits.

The appeal was supported by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who had commissioned a specialist medical report to help them decide whether to do so.

The case hinged around whether ADHD could constitute a “state of arrested development or incomplete physical development of the brain” under regulation 12(5) of the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991. In this particular case the Upper Tribunal decided that it did.

To get higher rate mobility on this basis any claimant must also have “severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning”.  It’s also only possible to get higher rate mobility via this route if higher rate care is also in payment.

It is likely that this judgement will only benefit children at the most extreme end of the ADHD spectrum. To get higher rate mobility a claimant must not only demonstrate “severe mental impairment”, but also very severe behaviour problems.

You can read the full judgement here.

Proposed changes announced last week by Chancellor of the Exchequer, The Rt. Hon. Rachel Reeves MP, hatched with Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, The Rt. Hon. Liz Kendal MP are unworkable.

They propose that all PIP claimants from some point next year will need at least one four points descriptor to get PIP. This could only conceivably apply to new claimants.

This proposal would have arbitrary and perverse results. This is because many severely disabled people get the daily living rate through aggregating 4 or more 2 points scores. A common combination being needing an aid to cook, wash/bathe, use the toilet and dress / undress. Some wheel-chair users have this combination.

The proposal as announced would therefore appear to be discriminatory against physically disabled people, as opposed to, say, sensory impaired claimants who would be more likely to have at least one four points plus descriptor. For example, a deaf person needing communication support will always have at least one four points descriptor.

Any changes along the lines proposed would likely swamp the DWP with applications for reviews, with mandatory reconsideration waiting times already reaching 15 weeks. The appeals system would likely be similarly even more overwhelmed than it is already. Many appellants are already waiting in excess of 12 months for first-tier hearings.

Accordingly the proposals appear unworkable. They also unfairly penalise disabled people who already struggle with other pressures, such as difficulties accessing services, health-care and employment.

Expect resignations from those responsible for these unfair, unreasonable and unworkable proposals.

Please write to your MP to point out the situation – a template letter can be found here. Sorry it is PDF because our website doesn’t accommodate word documents.