Applying and preparing evidence
Prepare concrete functional examples for the correct official claim route.
Four reliability questions matter
For relevant PIP and ADP activities, consider whether the activity can be done safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and within a reasonable time.
What to do next: Describe actual examples rather than writing only a diagnosis or symptom list.
Important limit: These questions are not a points calculator or a finding that a descriptor applies.
Sources and review information
Status: Owner released - source checked
Evidence check: Mapped to checked master-register claims
Jurisdiction: Great Britain by nation
Last checked: 2026-07-15
Review trigger: Recheck quarterly, immediately before release, and when an official source changes
Prepared by: Project editorial team
Owner release date: 2026-07-22
Independent review: Not independently reviewed
Corrections: Use the site correction route without including personal health information.
Last checked: 2026-07-15
Jurisdiction: Great Britain by nation; UK by nation; Great Britain
Prepared by: Project editorial team
Owner release date: 2026-07-22
Independent review: Not independently reviewed
Correction route: Report changed or inaccurate information without including personal health information.
For seizure risk, record warning and recovery in detail
Relevant evidence can include usable warning time, awareness, duration, immediate and later effects, actual or near harm, support needed and whether an activity can be repeated.
What to do next: Record what happens in the activity and context, not an assumed rule about non-epileptic seizures.
Important limit: Journey safety and physical walking limitations are separate activities. No seizure frequency automatically decides an award.
AM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2024] UKUT 289 (AAC)
Outcome: The First-tier Tribunal decision was set aside for error of law and the case was remitted for a complete fresh hearing before a differently constituted panel.
Safe lesson: A tribunal relying on a warning sign or brief loss of consciousness must make adequate findings about whether the warning is usable and whether the activity is safe, including relevant recovery effects.
Limits: The Upper Tribunal decisions discussed here establish legal principles and required fresh hearings. None creates diagnosis-based entitlement or itself awards PIP or ADP in the cases described. AM did not award a mobility component and did not decide that functional seizures automatically satisfy a descriptor.
Status: Upper Tribunal authority on legal principle, subject to later authority
Read the official judgment
RJ, GMcL and CS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] UKUT 105 (AAC); [2017] AACR 32
Outcome: The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeals, set aside the First-tier Tribunal decisions and remitted them for rehearing.
Safe lesson: Safety does not require harm to be more likely than not: decision makers consider a real possibility that cannot sensibly be ignored, together with the nature and gravity of the feared harm.
Limits: The Upper Tribunal decisions discussed here establish legal principles and required fresh hearings. None creates diagnosis-based entitlement or itself awards PIP or ADP in the cases described. The authority does not mean every infrequent seizure or risk leads to points; the activity, frequency, harm and evidence still require findings.
Status: Reported three-judge Upper Tribunal authority, subject to later authority
Read the official judgment
Sources and review information
Status: Owner released - source checked
Evidence check: Mapped to checked master-register claims
Jurisdiction: UK by nation
Last checked: 2026-07-15
Review trigger: Recheck quarterly, immediately before release, and when an official source changes
Prepared by: Project editorial team
Owner release date: 2026-07-22
Independent review: Not independently reviewed
Corrections: Use the site correction route without including personal health information.
Evidence should be considered for what it shows
Clinical evidence does not have to use benefit-descriptor wording to be relevant, and a one-day observation should not automatically outweigh the wider record.
What to do next: Link documents and examples to the functional question they help explain.
Important limit: No document is guaranteed to be decisive, and later evidence must still relate to the period in question.
IC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2025] UKUT 223 (AAC)
Outcome: The First-tier Tribunal decision was set aside for error of law and the appeal was remitted for a fresh hearing.
Safe lesson: Medical evidence should not automatically be given less weight because it was not written against PIP descriptors; the tribunal must assess all evidence holistically and give a person a fair chance to address material observations.
Limits: The Upper Tribunal decisions discussed here establish legal principles and required fresh hearings. None creates diagnosis-based entitlement or itself awards PIP or ADP in the cases described. IC does not require acceptance of every report, remove the relevant-date rule or establish entitlement from diagnosis.
Status: Upper Tribunal authority on legal principle, subject to later authority
Read the official judgment
Sources and review information
Status: Owner released - source checked
Evidence check: Mapped to checked master-register claims
Jurisdiction: Great Britain
Last checked: 2026-07-15
Review trigger: Recheck quarterly, immediately before release, and when an official source changes
Prepared by: Project editorial team
Owner release date: 2026-07-22
Independent review: Not independently reviewed
Corrections: Use the site correction route without including personal health information.
- IC v SSWP — IC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2025] UKUT 223 (AAC).
- AM v SSWP — AM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2024] UKUT 289 (AAC).
Build a functional-impact diary
The local-only worksheet records activity, context, better/usual/worse days, frequency, warning, help, harm, after-effects and repeatability.
What to do next: Print or save the worksheet locally, then use only relevant examples in the official process.
Important limit: Nothing is sent or stored by this site. The worksheet does not select descriptors, score points or predict an award.
Sources and review information
Status: Owner released - source checked
Evidence check: Mapped to checked master-register claims
Jurisdiction: UK by nation
Last checked: 2026-07-15
Review trigger: Recheck quarterly, immediately before release, and when an official source changes
Prepared by: Project editorial team
Owner release date: 2026-07-22
Independent review: Not independently reviewed
Corrections: Use the site correction route without including personal health information.
- PIP assessment guide — Department for Work and Pensions. PIP assessment guide, part 1: the assessment process.
- PIP Regulations 2013 — Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/377.
- Adult Disability Payment Regulations — Disability Assistance for Working Age People (Scotland) Regulations 2022, SSI 2022/54.
- Northern Ireland PIP Regulations — Personal Independence Payment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016, SR 2016 No. 217.
- AM v SSWP — AM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2024] UKUT 289 (AAC).
- RJ GMcL and CS v SSWP — RJ, GMcL and CS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] UKUT 105 (AAC); [2017] AACR 32.
- IC v SSWP — IC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2025] UKUT 223 (AAC).
Use the official application route
England and Wales use the GOV.UK PIP route, Scotland uses ADP, and Northern Ireland uses nidirect PIP. Pension-age routes differ again.
What to do next: Open the nation and age-matched official source in the evidence panel.
Important limit: Forms, evidence requests and accessibility support can change; do not rely on an undated copy.
Sources and review information
Status: Owner released - source checked
Evidence check: Mapped to checked master-register claims
Jurisdiction: UK by nation
Last checked: 2026-07-15
Review trigger: Recheck quarterly, immediately before release, and when an official source changes
Prepared by: Project editorial team
Owner release date: 2026-07-22
Independent review: Not independently reviewed
Corrections: Use the site correction route without including personal health information.