RA v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2024] UKUT 207 (AAC)
AM v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
13 May 2024
[2024] UKUT 137 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A man's Universal Credit was stopped because he was out of the UK for over a month. A court ruled that the initial plan was to be gone for less than a month so the benefit shouldn't have been stopped. The court corrected the decision and the man got his money back.
Key Facts
- •Claimant applied for Universal Credit on 29 September 2016.
- •Claimant left the UK for Ethiopia on 17 June 2021, intending to return after three weeks.
- •Due to travel restrictions, claimant returned on 23 December 2021.
- •The Secretary of State superseded the claimant's Universal Credit award from 29 May 2021, claiming an overpayment of £1,284.17.
- •The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the claimant's appeal.
- •The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal.
Legal Principles
Entitlement to Universal Credit is governed by Section 3 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.
Welfare Reform Act 2012, Section 3
Basic conditions for Universal Credit entitlement, including being in Great Britain, are outlined in Section 4 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.
Welfare Reform Act 2012, Section 4
Regulation 11 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 addresses temporary absences from Great Britain, allowing for disregard of absence under certain conditions.
Universal Credit Regulations 2013, Regulation 11
A superseding decision based on a change of circumstances takes effect from the start of the assessment period in which the change occurred (Schedule 1, paragraph 20 of the Decisions and Appeals Regulations 2013).
Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1, paragraph 20
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The First-tier Tribunal erred in its interpretation of Regulation 11(1) of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013. It failed to consider whether the claimant's absence was 'expected' to exceed one month before the end of the relevant assessment period. As the claimant's initial intention was to return within a month, and no evidence suggested a change in expectation before 28 June 2021, his absence should have been disregarded.
The First-tier Tribunal's decision was set aside.
The Upper Tribunal found a material error of law in the First-tier Tribunal's decision, which was financially disadvantageous to the claimant.
The Upper Tribunal remade the decision: the appeal is allowed, the Secretary of State's decision is set aside, and the claimant was awarded Universal Credit from 29 September 2016, with the award superseded from 29 June 2021 due to absence exceeding one month.
The Upper Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remake the decision itself, given the sufficient findings of fact by the First-tier Tribunal and to avoid further delay.