CK v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2024] UKUT 331 (AAC)
CU v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
31 January 2024
[2024] UKUT 32 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
Someone was denied backdated Universal Credit. A higher court decided the first court didn't consider all the factors (like whether he knew he could claim by phone and whether his disability affected his ability to find out), so they sent it back to be decided again properly.
Key Facts
- •Appellant successfully claimed Universal Credit (UC) on 25/02/2022.
- •Respondent awarded UC from the claim date but rejected backdating to 01/11/2021.
- •FTT dismissed the appeal, finding the Appellant could reasonably have claimed earlier by phone.
- •UT granted permission to appeal, finding errors of law in the FTT's decision.
Legal Principles
Regulation 26(2)(b) of the Universal Credit (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013: determines whether a claimant could not reasonably have been expected to make a claim earlier due to specified circumstances, including disability.
Universal Credit (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013
The 'good cause' test for backdating claims was abolished in 1997. While previous case law on reasonableness may be relevant, a causal link between the circumstance (disability) and the inability to claim earlier must be established.
CIS/4490/98, R(S) 2/63, R(SB) 6/83
A claimant's knowledge of the benefit system and the means of claiming are relevant background circumstances when assessing what could reasonably be expected.
CSJSA/811/06, R(IS) 3/01
Regulation 8(2) of the Claims and Payments Regulations allows telephone claims, subject to the Secretary of State's acceptance.
Universal Credit (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013
Outcomes
The UT allowed the appeal.
The FTT erred in law by narrowly focusing on physical ability to make a phone call without considering the Appellant's broader circumstances, including knowledge of the benefit system and language barriers. Insufficient findings were made regarding the possibility of a telephone claim being accepted.
The case was remitted to a fresh FTT for reconsideration.
The UT deemed that further evidence and fact-finding were necessary regarding the Appellant's knowledge of the benefit system, language barriers, and the reasonableness of expecting a telephone claim. The UT did not remake the decision itself as this would require evidence not presented to the initial tribunals.