2025UT46
Ref: UTS/AS/25/0008
DECISION OF
Lord Lake
ON THE APPEAL
(DECISION OF FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL FOR SCOTLAND)
IN THE CASE OF
JD
per North Ayrshire Council Money Matters
Appellant
- and -
Social Security Scotland
Respondent
FTS Case Reference: FTS/SSC/AE/24/03020
24 June 2025
Decision
The Upper Tribunal grants the appeal, quashes the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Social
Security Chamber) dated 18 November 2024 in so far is it relates to Mobility Activity 1 and remits
the case back to a differently constituted Tribunal.
Reasons
1.
JD seeks to appeal the decision of the First Tier Tribunal (Social Security Chamber) dated 8
January 2025. On 24 April, limited permission to appeal was granted by the Upper
Tribunal. Following that, Social Security Scotland have lodged a written response and JD
has lodged a reply.
2.
It is apparent from parties' submissions that both are content that this matter is addressed
without a hearing. Accordingly, I have exercised the power in Rule 22 of the Upper
Tribunal for Scotland (Social Security Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2016 to proceed in
that way.
3.
The written response for SSS considers in some detail the principles that should be applied
by the FTS when considering Mobility Activity 1. It refers to the cases of JC v SSWP (PIP)
so, the response concludes that FTS erred in making their decision in relation to this matter.
The submissions are interesting and helpful but, in view of the decision I have made and
the fact that this matter will now have to be reconsidered before the FTS, it is not
appropriate that I express any views on them.
4.
As parties are agreed that there has been an error, the appeal should be allowed. I
accordingly quash the decision in so far as it relates to Mobility Activity 1 and remit back
to FTS. There was some disagreement between the parties as to whether the tribunal that
next hears it should be differently constituted from the one that heard it earlier. It is
desirable that this matter is resolved as soon as possible. Requiring it to be heard by the
same panel, could result in delay. In that the parties appear to contemplate that there will
require to be further evidence, there does not appear to any particular advantage in
remitting to the original panel. Accordingly, I direct that the matter should be remitted
back to the Tribunal to be heard before a differently constituted panel.
A party to this case who is aggrieved by this decision may seek permission to appeal to the Court of Session
on a point of law only. A party who wishes to appeal must seek permission to do so from the Upper
Tribunal within 30 days of the date on which this decision was sent to him or her. Any such request for
permission must be in writing and must (a) identify the decision of the Upper Tribunal to which it relates,
(b) identify the alleged error or errors of law in the decision and (c) state in terms of section 50(4) of the
Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014 what important point of principle or practice would be raised or what other
compelling reason there is for allowing a further appeal to proceed.
Lord Lake
Member of the Upper Tribunal for Scotland