News

KDR has supported a client to win a case that will help others who make mistakes on their PIP questionnaires, as well as those who require prompting to take nutrition and get it, following a case brought by Kester Disability Rights with legal representation from Edward Arash Abedian of Landmark Chambers.

The UT decided that it is not acceptable for tribunals to rely on mistakes by a claimant when filling in forms to rule out points for any particular activity. It also confirmed that a need for prompting to take nutrition does not have to be unmet to score. This means that the routine requirement for there to be evidence of weight loss and prescribed nutritional supplements, even when claimants are getting support to avoid weight loss, will hopefully no longer be applied.

It has been difficult to get points for activity 2 (taking nutrition) when mental health needs result in failure to eat enough requiring another person to encourage sufficient food intake. This case should help.

The Upper Tribunal found [22], “The Tribunal struck out the claimant’s appeal because it considered the SoS Decision contained no official error. The basis for that conclusion was “the Appellant or those who dealt with the application on her behalf did not list an eating disorder as being one of her conditions in her application” (per the Tribunal’s decision notice). In essence, the Tribunal considered that the responses to the tick boxes in the PIP questionnaire justified the SoS Decision and precluded a finding of official error”.

And [28], “For these reasons it is important that a decision maker considers the evidence in the round, and a claimant is not denied a benefit to which they are entitled because they lack insight into their condition or have misunderstood the questions in the form”.

You can read the full judgement here.

There is a disturbing trend to increasing exploitation of vulnerable people with Artificial Intelligence (AI).

For this reason KDR’s policy is not to respond to any AI generated communications.

KDR seeks always to use our slim resources in the best way we can.  We are currently devoting staff time to a tribunals review committee looking at how efficiency can be improved so that large and growing back-logs can be reduced. 

Our tribunals system is a precious ingredient of our democracy.   It means that whenever a citizen is denied a Social Security benefit by DWP officials they can appeal to an independent legally constituted tribunal.  That is a vital safeguard.

In the current climate it is perhaps unsurprising that the system has become overloaded.  So unfortunately decisions are sometimes not as good as they could be.  And when people have waited a very long time for such a decision, it is a big double whammy.

We hope that by contributing our expertise at the sharp end of all this we will be able to make a helpful contribution such as the situation improves.

More information here, although please note the information has not been updated with details of the Tribunals Backlogs Working Group we have joined: https://www.judiciary.uk/related-offices-and-bodies/advisory-bodies/administrative-justice-council/working-groups/

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.