Legal Principle of Consent in Benefits Claims Examined in Secretary of State v GK (ESA) Ruling

Citation: [2023] UKUT 273 (AAC)
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of “The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v GK (ESA)” concerns the validity of a claim for Carer’s Allowance and its implications on the Severe Disability Premium (SDP) included in an individual’s award of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). The detailed judgment of Upper Tribunal Judge Wright elucidates several legal principles, focusing particularly on consent’s role in the validity of benefits claims and the effect of such claims on existing entitlements.

Key Facts

GK had been receiving ESA with an SDP since 2009. A later claim for Carer’s Allowance by GK’s mother in July 2018 led to a revision of his entitlements. The Secretary of State decided that GK was overpaid the SDP from July 2020 to December 2020 and that he was not entitled to the SDP thereafter because of his mother’s Carer’s Allowance award.

The First-tier Tribunal originally allowed GK’s appeal against this decision on the grounds that GK lacked the legal capacity to provide effective consent for the Carer’s Allowance claim made by his mother. However, on appeal by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Judge Wright set aside this decision, holding that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law.

The Upper Tribunal’s judgment underscores several key legal principles relevant to the case:

Judge Wright affirmed that consent of the cared-for person is not a statutory condition for entitlement to Carer’s Allowance under section 70 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. The Tribunal underlined that a claim’s validity relies on statutory entitlement and not on ancillary formalities such as consent.

Jurisdiction and Finality of Benefit Decisions

The judgment considers the First-tier Tribunal’s decision vis-à-vis legal finality enshrined in section 17(1) of the Social Security Act 1998. A doubt arises as to whether the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to assess a Carer’s Allowance claim’s validity when the actual appeal concerned only the SDP and ESA entitlement.

Reliance on Previous Judgments

The judgment references case law such as R(SB)9/84, and CIS/812/1999 concerning the effect of a lack of capacity on benefits claims, and R(S)13/81 for issues concerning the validity of a benefits award pending its set aside by a competent body.

Outcomes

The outcome is a ruling in favor of the Secretary of State, where the Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal. It concluded that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by incorrectly attributing legal significance to the consent of the claimant for the Carer’s Allowance claim made by his mother. Consequently, Judge Wright set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and reinstated the decision disallowing the claimant’s appeal, which affirmed the discontinuation of SDP entitlement due to the Carer’s Allowance awarded to the claimant’s mother.

Conclusion

In “Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v GK (ESA)”, the concept of consent in benefits claim has been incisively examined and clarified. The judgment effectively reaffirms the principle that entitlement to benefits is determined by statutory conditions and not by peripheral aspects such as consent of the care recipient. Legal practitioners should note the importance of focusing on statutory frameworks and the established procedures for challenging benefit decisions, recognizing the limitations on jurisdiction, and respecting the finality of awarded benefits unless set aside by an authorised entity.