AllowedUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·18 Dec 2017
Upper Tribunal Allows Appeal Against Personal Independence Payment Decision
AllowedUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·18 Dec 2017
Upper Tribunal Sets Aside First-tier Tribunal Decision on Employment and Support Allowance
DismissedUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·14 Dec 2017
Upper Tribunal Upholds Benefit Sanctions for Inadequate Job Search
The Upper Tribunal upheld the decision to reduce a claimant's benefit payments due to inadequate job search efforts. The claimant did not take all reasonable steps to find employment, leading to sanctions imposed by the Secretary of State.
AllowedUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·01 Oct 2021
Upper Tribunal allows appeal on rent calculation for Coventry property
DismissedUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·12 Dec 2017
Upper Tribunal Upholds Special Educational Needs Decision Despite Error
Allowed in PartUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·15 Jan 2019
Upper Tribunal Decision on Jobseeker's Allowance Sanctions
AllowedUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·06 Dec 2017
Appeal Against JSA Sanctions Successfully Challenged at Upper Tribunal
The claimant successfully appealed against sanctions imposed for insufficient Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) search activity. The Upper Tribunal found an error of law by the First-tier Tribunal and allowed the appeal.
AllowedUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·14 Dec 2017
Upper Tribunal Allows Appeal Against Denial of PIP and Termination of DLA
The Upper Tribunal allowed the claimant's appeal against the decision denying him Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and terminating his Disability Living Allowance (DLA). The decision was overturned because the consultation process did not follow the correct procedures as outlined in the Social Security Regulations.
AllowedUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·04 Dec 2017
Upper Tribunal Allows Appeal on PIP Claim Due to Legal Errors
The Upper Tribunal allowed an appeal, overturning a previous decision due to legal errors. The claimant, who has severe visual impairment, was awarded the enhanced rate for the mobility component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
AllowedUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·04 Dec 2017
Personal Independence Payment Case Remanded Due to Legal Error
AllowedUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·04 Dec 2017
Tribunal Sets Aside PIP Decision Due to Legal Error in Benefits Claim
AllowedUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·04 Dec 2017
Upper Tribunal Sets Aside Decision on ESA Mobilising Descriptors
AllowedUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·28 Nov 2017
Upper Tribunal Allows Appeal on Disability Living Allowance Error
DismissedUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·21 Nov 2017
Appeal on Jobseeker's Allowance Eligibility Dismissed by Upper Tribunal
DismissedUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·29 Nov 2017
Upper Tribunal Upholds Smaller Bedroom Standards for Benefits
DismissedUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·13 Nov 2017
Upper Tribunal Confirms Reduction in Disability Assessment
AllowedUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·15 Nov 2017
Tribunal Allows Appeal on PIP Supervision Error in Manchester Case
The Upper Tribunal allowed an appeal challenging how the term 'supervision' was interpreted under the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) regulations. The First-tier Tribunal's decision was overturned because it incorrectly required one-to-one supervision rather than continuous presence to ensure safety.
DismissedUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·04 Dec 2018
Upper Tribunal Rejects Appeal on PIP Mobility Component for Hospital Residents
Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·03 Nov 2017
Upper Tribunal Sets Aside Decision on Right to Reside for Employment and Support Allowance
AllowedUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)·04 Dec 2017
PIP Appeal Success: Tribunal Statement of Reasons Found Inadequate
The Upper Tribunal overturned a decision regarding a Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claim because the lower court's explanation of its decision was inadequate. The tribunal highlighted the importance of clearly explaining the aids or appliances considered in the decision-making process.