From Rightsnet & not sure its any different from the detail already posted - I can often understand the rightsnet explanation better though
Government announces it will not appeal High Court judgment that found PIP mobility amendment regulations unlawful
Secretary of State also says earlier decision relating to psychological distress and mobility will also be implemented
The government has announced that it will not appeal a High Court judgment that found personal independence payment (PIP) mobility amendment regulations unlawful.
In a written statement in the House of Commons today, Ms McVey announced that 'after careful consideration' she has decided not to appeal the High Court's judgment in RF v SSWP & Ors [2017] EWHC 3375 (Admin) that found regulation 2(4) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 unlawful.
NB - the 2017 regulations came into effect on 16 March 2017 and were laid in response to the Upper Tribunal decision in MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKUT 0531 (AAC). The new regulations had the effect of excluding eligibility in respect of three of the mobility activity 1 descriptors - 1c, 1d, and 1f - if the cause of the claimant meeting the descriptor would have been psychological distress.
Introducing her statement by saying that support for people with mental health conditions is a 'top priority' for the government, Ms McVey goes on to explain that -
'On 21st December 2017 the High Court published its judgment in the judicial review challenge against regulation 2(4) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 S.I. 2017/194. The Regulations reversed the effect of the Upper Tribunal judgment in MH.
I wish to inform the House that, after careful consideration, I have decided not to appeal the High Court judgment. My Department will now take all steps necessary to implement the judgment in MH in the best interests of our claimants, working closely with disabled people and key stakeholders over the coming months.
Although I and my Department accept the High Court’s judgment, we do not agree with some of the detail contained therein. Our intention has always been to deliver the policy intent of the original regulations, as approved by Parliament, and to provide the best support to claimants with mental health conditions.
The Department for Work and Pensions will now undertake an exercise to go through all affected cases in receipt of PIP and all decisions made following the judgment in MH to identify anyone who may be entitled to more as a result of the judgment. We will then write to those individuals affected, and all payments will be backdated to the effective date in each individual claim.'
Ms McVey's written statement is available from parliament.uk