LAUSR

In MM v SSWP [2019] UKSC 34 the Supreme Court considered the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) regulations for the first time since their introduction in 2013. The case goes some way to resolving some of the questions regarding ‘engaging with other people face to face’ which have been troubling tribunals, claimants and their representatives over the last 6 years, however, in doing so, the court raises new challenges. PIP is a non means-test and non-contributory benefit, which replaced Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for new, working age and (over time) existing claimants who were of working age in April 2013 or attained working age after that date. Though entitlement to PIP derives from Part 4 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, in common with most UK social security law, the grounds under which the benefit is awarded are contained in secondary legislation; in this case, The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013 No. 377) (PIP Regulations). Like DLA, PIP has two separate components, a mobility component and a Daily Living component. The latter is designed to fulfil the same role as the DLA Care Component but the PIP Daily Living component is centred around the functional capacity of the person with disability themselves, rather than the assistance needed to lead a ‘normal life’. This functional capacity is assessed via 10 activity areas comprising a hierarchy of different point scoring descriptors. These points are accumulated to determine the level of award; 8 points for the standard rate and 12 for the enhanced rate. MM concerns one of these activities (‘activity 9’, outlined in part 2 of schedule 1 to the PIP regulations), subtitled ‘engaging with other people face to face’. The Activity was developed during the PIP consultation process to better reflect the needs of people with mental health problems and learning disabilities (DWP 2011, 2012)). On paper this suggests a more generous provision in respect of people with mental health problems than had been the case under DLA, though there is some evidence that this is not borne out by the assessment process (Pybus et al. 2019). The descriptors are set out in Figure 1 below. Experience from practice suggests that a difference of just 2 points between (b) and (c) is often the deciding factor in being awarded a standard or higher rate award of PIP. The clarification offered by the Supreme Court in MM v SSWP regarding the interpretation of