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