The Short Answer
An Upper Tribunal decision published on 18 September 2026 says a PIP tribunal must take the DWP's view into account before it reopens a part of an award that nobody appealed. In Hasnain v SSWP, a claimant appealed only for the daily living part and lost his enhanced mobility award at a rehearing. The Upper Tribunal set that decision aside and sent the appeal to a new tribunal. It also ruled that a tribunal being "unhappy" with its own decision is not a ground to set it aside.
What this means for your payments
- Who is affected: PIP claimants with an appeal at the First-tier Tribunal, especially those who keep an award on one part of PIP and appeal the other.
- What changes to your money or your payment date: PIP rates do not change. The ruling clarifies how a tribunal must approach an award that is not under appeal.
- From when: the decision was authorised for issue on 25 August 2026 and published on GOV.UK on 18 September 2026.
- What you need to do: nothing. The decision's reference is [2026] UKUT 336 (AAC), if you or your adviser want to cite it.
What the Upper Tribunal Decided
The Upper Tribunal made two rulings, and both protect the part of a PIP award that is not under appeal.
- A First-tier Tribunal cannot set aside its own decision because it is "unhappy" with it. A request for set aside is not enough either. Rule 37 applies only where one of the procedural errors in rule 37(2) is met.
- A tribunal that decides to look at a part of the award nobody appealed must take into account the DWP's view of that award. Here the DWP had stated: "I agree with all descriptors selected."
Judge Wright wrote: "The tribunal system is a rules based system and those rules must be satisfied and shown to be satisfied in any tribunal decision." He described the DWP's view as "an obvious material consideration which the FTT failed to take into account".
What Happened in the Case
The claimant appealed only for the daily living part of PIP, and a later tribunal removed his mobility award as well.
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| 2 February 2024 | DWP decision: no daily living award (6 points), enhanced mobility award (12 points) from 6 March 2024 to 18 January 2027 |
| 27 January 2025 | First tribunal refuses the daily living appeal and leaves the mobility award in place, because the DWP had not put it in issue |
| 13 February 2025 | The tribunal sets aside its own decision and warns that the mobility award could be at risk |
| 9 May 2025 | A new tribunal scores 0 points for both parts and decides there is no PIP from 6 March 2024 |
| 25 August 2026 | The Upper Tribunal allows the appeal and orders a fresh hearing |
| 18 September 2026 | The decision is published on GOV.UK |
Last checked:
The DWP supported the claimant's appeal to the Upper Tribunal on both points.
Why It Matters for PIP Appeals
A tribunal can look at the whole award, but this ruling says it must weigh the DWP's position before it does. The Upper Tribunal notes that a tribunal is only obliged to consider issues raised by the appeal, or issues it chooses to consider. That choice is a discretion, and it must be used lawfully.
In this case the DWP, as the payer of the benefit, never questioned the mobility award, even after the first tribunal raised doubts about it. The Upper Tribunal held that the second tribunal should have taken that into account. How a hearing runs is explained in The PIP Tribunal, and the routes after a tribunal decision in If You Lose Your PIP Tribunal.
To compare the points in your decision letter with your own view of each activity, you can check your points for each activity with the points calculator.
Legal Status
The ruling is an Upper Tribunal decision on a point of law: Hasnain v SSWP (PIP) [2026] UKUT 336 (AAC). It was decided on the papers by Upper Tribunal Judge Stewart Wright. It is not a change to the PIP regulations.
What Has Not Changed
A tribunal can still consider issues that the appeal did not raise. The ruling governs how it uses that discretion, not whether it has it. PIP rates, the descriptors and the points needed for an award are unchanged. The Upper Tribunal also stated that its decision "says nothing one way or the other" about whether this claimant's appeal will succeed on the facts.
What Happens Next
A new tribunal, with none of the earlier judges or members, will rehear the appeal after an oral hearing. The DWP must first file a submission, within one month of the decision's issue, saying whether it now wants to raise any issue about the claimant's epilepsy or the award it made in February 2024.