“I accede to the claimant’s application and grant her permission to appeal. Although she did not herself seek permission in relation to the daily living component, it seems to me that there is an arguable case that the Tribunal erred in law in relation to daily living activity 9. In particular, in relation to daily living activity 9, with which the Tribunal dealt in paragraph 9 of the statement of reasons, was not the appellant potentially entitled to points for either descriptor 9(b) or descriptor 9(c) in the light of the decisions in SF v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)[2016] UKUT 543 (AAC) (that the claimant engaged effectively with the healthcare professional or could attend for hospital appointments was not sufficient) and HA v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)[2018] UKUT 56 (AAC) (that the claimant could engage effectively only with others who were already known to him/her was not sufficient)?”
“2The Tribunal has recorded at paragraph 2 of the Statement of Reasons (SoR) it’s findings regarding the claimant’s health conditions. Of relevance to the matter under appeal is the Tribunal found the claimant to have been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, which takes the form of a thought disorder and delusional beliefs. Her mental health is managed with support from a mental health duty worker and by attending monthly appointments to have depot injections administered. Although the claimant’s mental health appears to have stabilised over the years, it appears this is due to the ongoing support she has available. Despite finding that the claimant is diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, the Tribunal did not find this to impact her ability to engage with other people face to face unaided….. ….In reaching this decision the Tribunal noted that the claimant was able to engage with her neighbours, who were her friends.”