Case Law Analysis: Upper Tribunal decision in Secretary of State v PL clarifies UC entitlement and legacy benefit protections

Citation: [2023] UKUT 288 (AAC)
Judgment on

Introduction

The case under scrutiny, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v PL ([2023] UKUT 288 (AAC)), offers a platform to understand the application of specific legal provisions regarding entitlement to certain benefits and the legal consequences of administrative misguidance. This case centres on the eligibility and entitlement to Universal Credit (UC) against the backdrop of prior entitlement to income-related employment and support allowance (IRESA), including the Severe Disability Premium (SDP), having been remanded in custody.

Key Facts

The claimant had a history of entitlement to IRESA and housing benefit, inclusive of SDP. This entitlement ceased upon his remand to custody. Upon release, the claimant was advised and subsequently filed a claim for UC. However, during a subsequent mandatory reconsideration, the claimant contested the award amount, noting a reduction in financial support and absence of SDP. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) ruled that the claim for UC should have been treated as a claim for IRESA, thereby instructing the Secretary of State to re-assess the claimant for an award of IRESA instead of UC.

The case’s analysis pivots around several key legal principles and regulations:

  1. SDP Gateway (Regulation 4A of the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/1230)): This legislation prohibited a claim for UC by persons who had, within the past month, been entitled to an award of an existing benefit that includes an SDP. In this scenario, the claimant should have been barred from claiming UC on account of ongoing entitlement to housing benefit inclusive of SDP.

  2. The ‘Lobster Pot Principle’: This principle precludes claimants who have opted for UC from reverting to legacy benefits. This is instrumental in the legal framework since UC had been rolled out entirely across the UK, abolishing new claims to legacy benefits post-Commencement Orders under the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

  3. Legislation on Claim Interchangeability: As per regulation 9 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987/1968), specific benefits can be interchanged in claims. UC, however, is not among those benefits and cannot be substituted by a claim for another benefit such as IRESA.

Outcomes

The Upper Tribunal Judge Wikeley found the FTT’s direction for the Secretary of State to re-assess the claimant for IRESA was an error in law for two reasons:

  • The FTT decision implies an award of a legacy benefit that new claims could no longer be made for post-UC rollout.
  • There is no legal provision that allows for a UC claim to be transformed into a claim for IRESA.

The Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT’s decision and re-made it to dismiss the claimant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision from 10 May 2020.

Conclusion

In Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v PL, the Upper Tribunal’s decision underscores a strict interpretation of the welfare reform legal framework within the UK. It reinforces the SDP Gateway provision’s role in ensuring that existing protections within legacy benefits are honored prior to transitioning to UC. It also highlights the lobster pot principle’s applicability and the uncompromising nature of the statutory regime when it comes to claims interchangeability. This outcome, while legally sound, does acknowledge the less-than-ideal circumstances faced by the claimant upon receiving misadvice from Jobcentre staff—an occurrence unfortunately not within the tribunal’s purview to rectify. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for both claimants and advisors in the complex landscape of welfare benefits.