RM against Social Security Scotland - 'adequacy of reasons'

RM applied for Adult Disability Payment (ADP) on 2 May 2023.
Social Security Scotland initially denied the application, scoring RM no points for any activities.
Upon re-determination, RM was awarded some points but still denied ADP.

RM suffers from moderate COPD, gastritis, depression, back and neck pain, and a heart condition.
RM was awarded daily living points for activities 1b, 4b, and 6b based on his need for aids but was found to manage toilet needs independently.
RM was awarded the mobility component at the standard rate but not the daily living component.

RM appealed, arguing the First-tier Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, particularly regarding daily living activity 5.

The appeal was refused.
The Upper Tribunal found the First-tier Tribunal provided adequate reasons for its decision.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal was upheld.

Eligibility for ADP depends on scoring sufficient points under specific descriptors.
The test for adequacy of reasons in Scotland requires decisions to be intelligible and address substantial questions.
- Judge Poole reproduces the test for adequacy of reasons for decisions of the FTS about eligibility for social security payments as expressed in AK v Social Security Scotland 2024 UT 5 (paragraph 8) –
  ‘The classic test for adequacy of reasons in Scotland is found in Wordie Property Co Ltd v Secretary of State for Scotland 1984 SLT 345. The tribunal must “give proper and adequate reasons for [its] decision which deal with the substantial questions in issue in an intelligible way. The decision must, in short, leave the informed reader … in no real and substantial doubt as to what the reasons for it were and what were the material considerations which were taken into account in reaching it” (see also DS v SSWP [2019] 4 UKUT 347 at paragraphs 5 to 15). Reasons, to be adequate, do not require to involve consideration of every issue raised by the parties or deal with every piece of material in evidence. The decision of the FTS has to be read as a whole, in a straightforward manner, and recognising it is addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved’.

RM against Social Security Scotland – ‘adequacy of reasons’