Key Facts
- •Appeal concerns Universal Credit (UC) payments and the delay for those without a National Insurance Number (NINo).
- •Claimants lacked NINos, leading to significant delays in processing UC claims due to administrative errors.
- •The Secretary of State's policy was to not make advance payments until NINo verification was complete.
- •Claimants received backdated payments, making the appeal focus on the timing of payments, not the amount.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the judicial review claims.
Legal Principles
Entitlement to UC requires a NINo or an application with enabling information/evidence.
s. 1(1B) SSAA 1992
Advance payments can be made if a claim is pending, it's likely conditions are met, and the claimant is in need.
Reg 5(1) Payments on Account Regulations
The Secretary of State decides claims for benefits.
s. 8 SSA 1998
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed regarding the interpretation of s. 1(1B)(b) SSAA 1992; the UT's interpretation upholding the need for verified information/evidence was correct.
The court found that "enabling" in s. 1(1B)(b) requires evidence that actually justifies NINo allocation, not just evidence that appears sufficient.
Appeal dismissed regarding the two-stage NINo verification process; the process was deemed rational.
The court found that the Secretary of State's system balances prompt and accurate payments, and that using specialized officers for NINo verification is rational.
Appeal allowed regarding the Secretary of State's practice of never considering advance payments for those without NINos.
The court found that the Secretary of State can, in principle, assess the likelihood of a claimant meeting entitlement conditions before NINo verification is complete.