Free PIP Tribunal Appeal Letter Template

PIP Tribunal Appeal — Notice of Appeal Companion

First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)  ·  2 June 2026

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write to lodge a Notice of Appeal with the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) against the decision of the Department for Work and Pensions in respect of my claim for Personal Independence Payment. This letter accompanies my completed form SSCS1 and a copy of the Mandatory Reconsideration Notice dated 19 May 2026. My appeal is brought within the 1-month period prescribed by rule 22 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 (the appeal deadline is 19 June 2026).

Full name: Emily Rose Thornton
National Insurance number: JK 12 34 56 C
Date of birth: 14 June 1987
Address: 42 Beechwood Avenue, Leeds LS6 2HP
Telephone: 07700 900342
Email: emily.thornton@email.co.uk
Region for HMCTS routing: England and Wales
PIP claim reference: PIP-2026-LS-998421

Date of Mandatory Reconsideration Notice (MRN): 19 May 2026
MRN reference: MRN-2026-LS-998421
Component(s) under appeal: Daily Living and Mobility components
Appeal deadline (1 month from MRN): 19 June 2026
Hearing preference: an in-person oral hearing

The Tribunal is invited to find that I am entitled to the Enhanced Rate of both components of PIP. The Mandatory Reconsideration upheld the original decision but did not engage with the descriptor-by-descriptor disagreement and supporting medical evidence submitted at the Mandatory Reconsideration stage.

The detailed grounds for appealing the Department's decision are framed by reference to the PIP descriptors in Schedule 1 of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 and to the evidence relied on:

Daily Living activities
Activity 1 (Preparing food): the descriptor of "needs prompting to prepare or cook a simple meal" (4 points) applies; my partner prompts and supervises me three or more days a week.
Activity 4 (Washing and bathing): the descriptor of "needs assistance to get in or out of a bath or shower" (4 points) applies, evidenced by my consultant rheumatologist's letter of 11 January 2026.
Activity 9 (Engaging with others face to face): the descriptor of "needs prompting to be able to engage with other people" (2 points) applies on a majority-of-days basis because of severe anxiety; see daily diary.

Mobility activities
Activity 2 (Moving around): the descriptor "cannot, either aided or unaided, stand and then move more than 1 metre" (12 points) applies on the majority of days, evidenced by the daily diary and falls log enclosed.
The assessment incorrectly applied the better-day standard rather than the majority-of-days standard.

Majority-of-days and fluctuating conditions
Regulation 7(1) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 requires the decision-maker to assess whether each descriptor applies on more than 50% of days over the relevant 12-month period. The MAR records a single 45-minute observation on a single day; the daily diary covering January-March 2026 shows that on most days I cannot perform the contested activities without the levels of assistance set out above. The Tribunal is invited to substitute its own findings of fact applying the majority-of-days standard properly.

The Tribunal is invited to note the following procedural defects in the Mandatory Reconsideration:

— The Mandatory Reconsideration decision-maker failed to take into account medical evidence that was before the Department, in particular evidence provided in the original claim and at the Mandatory Reconsideration stage.
— The Mandatory Reconsideration Notice does not contain an adequate Statement of Reasons explaining why specific descriptors were scored as they were and why the medical evidence was not accepted.
— The reconsideration response does not engage with the descriptor-by-descriptor analysis submitted at the Mandatory Reconsideration stage; reasons are generic and do not address the specific points raised.

The Mandatory Reconsideration Notice runs to two paragraphs and does not identify which descriptors were considered, which were rejected, or why the consultant's letter and daily diary were given no weight.

Documentary evidence relied on at hearing:
Annex 1 — GP letter Dr A Patel dated 14 March 2026
Annex 2 — Consultant rheumatologist letter Dr R Carter dated 11 January 2026
Annex 3 — Daily diary January-March 2026
Annex 4 — Falls log from community physiotherapist
Annex 5 — Medication schedule
Annex 6 — Copy of original PIP2 questionnaire

Witness(es) the Appellant intends to call:
Mr James Thornton (partner — observes daily living needs); Ms Catherine Patel (community physiotherapist — falls history).

I rely on the duty under the Equality Act 2010 (sections 20-21 + Schedule 4) for service-providers — including HMCTS — to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. The adjustments I require at the hearing are:

I require frequent breaks (10 minutes per hour) due to pain and fatigue. I would benefit from a support worker (my partner) being present in the hearing room. I ask that the hearing papers be provided in large print (14pt minimum).

I respectfully request the First-tier Tribunal to (a) recognise the descriptor-matched grounds set out above; (b) allow this appeal and substitute a revised PIP award in accordance with the grounds set out in the SSCS1 Notice of Appeal; and (c) direct payment of any arrears due from the date of the original claim. I am content for the hearing to proceed in accordance with the preference indicated above and I will organise the hearing bundle and respond promptly to any directions from the Tribunal.

YOURS FAITHFULLY,