Upper Tribunal Rules DWP Asked Key PIP Questions in the Wrong Order
A significant new ruling from the UK’s Upper Tribunal could affect how thousands of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) mobility claims are assessed.
In a precedent-setting decision, two appeals were heard together by a three-judge panel of the Upper Tribunal, examining how decision-makers apply the rules for assessing a claimant’s ability to plan and follow a journey under the PIP mobility component.
The case — AH & AK v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2026] UKUT 50 (AAC) — centred on whether the Department for Work and Pensions had been applying the mobility descriptors incorrectly.
The tribunal concluded that the order in which certain PIP descriptors were considered was wrong, potentially affecting outcomes for some claimants.
Why This Case Matters
The decision focused on Mobility Activity 1: Planning and Following a Journey, part of the rules governing entitlement to Personal Independence Payment.
The tribunal said the descriptors must be considered in a specific order, which had not always been done correctly.
According to the ruling, decision-makers should assess the descriptors in this sequence:
1a
1b
1c
1d
1f
1e (last)
The judges ruled that descriptor 1e should always be considered last, because it represents the most severe level of functional limitation.
In simple terms:
The system should ask whether someone cannot follow a familiar journey even with assistance (1f) before deciding if they cannot undertake any journey due to overwhelming psychological distress (1e).
The Problem the Tribunal Identified
The panel warned that applying the descriptors incorrectly could leave some claimants falling between the rules.
In particular, they highlighted concerns that claimants experiencing overwhelming psychological distress when travelling could be disadvantaged if the descriptors were not assessed in the correct order.
The tribunal stressed that the law must not be interpreted in a way that creates a “gap” where disabled people do not meet either descriptor, despite clearly experiencing serious mobility limitations.
Two Appeals, One Key Legal Question
The ruling involved two claimants, referred to as AH and AK, whose cases raised important legal questions about how the mobility rules should work.
Both had their appeals allowed by the Upper Tribunal.
The court found that the earlier First-tier Tribunal decisions contained errors of law, meaning the original rulings could not stand.
As a result:
The previous decisions were set aside
Both cases will now be reheard by new First-tier Tribunal panels
Clarifying How PIP Mobility Should Be Assessed
The judges also clarified how the “reliability” rules in the PIP regulations should be applied.
Under the law, a person can only be considered able to carry out an activity if they can do it:
Safely
To an acceptable standard
Repeatedly
Within a reasonable time
These reliability criteria apply across the mobility descriptors and must be taken into account when assessing whether a claimant can follow a journey.
The tribunal also emphasised that decision-makers must consider all of a claimant’s conditions together, including both physical and mental health issues.
What Happens Next?
Because this ruling was issued by a three-judge panel of the Upper Tribunal, it carries significant authority within the social security tribunal system.
Future tribunals and decision-makers will now need to apply the interpretation set out in the judgment when assessing mobility activity 1.
While the decision does not automatically change existing awards, it may influence:
ongoing appeals
future PIP assessments
how tribunals interpret the mobility descriptors.
For claimants whose cases involve psychological distress when travelling, the ruling could become an important precedent.
? Key takeaway:
The tribunal has clarified that PIP mobility descriptors 1f and 1e must be considered in the correct order, ensuring claimants with serious mobility limitations — particularly those caused by psychological distress — are not unfairly excluded.