SR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2024] UKUT 198 (AAC)
ES v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
10 April 2024
[2024] UKUT 97 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A Polish woman living in the UK claimed disability benefits. A lower court wrongly rejected her claim because of a misunderstanding about EU rules. A higher court corrected the mistake, showing that EU rules still partly applied, allowing her claim to continue.
Key Facts
- •ES, a Polish citizen residing in Scotland since 2017, claimed Personal Independence Payment (PIP) on 23 September 2021.
- •Her claim was refused due to insufficient presence in Great Britain within the 156 weeks preceding the claim.
- •ES appealed, and the Upper Tribunal (UT) found the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) erred in law by misinterpreting the revocation of Regulation (EC) 883/2004.
- •The key issue was whether Regulation 22 of the Social Security (PIP) Regulations 2013 applied, considering the Withdrawal Agreement's impact on Regulation 883/2004.
Legal Principles
A person is not entitled to PIP unless they meet prescribed conditions relating to residence and presence in Great Britain (Section 77(3), Welfare Reform Act 2012).
Welfare Reform Act 2012, Section 77(3)
Regulation 16(b) of the Social Security (PIP) Regulations 2013 requires presence in Great Britain for at least 104 weeks out of the preceding 156 weeks, unless Regulation 22 applies.
Social Security (PIP) Regulations 2013, Regulation 16(b)
Regulation 22 disapplies Regulation 16(b) if the claimant is habitually resident in Great Britain, a relevant EU Regulation applies, and they have a genuine and sufficient link to the UK social security system.
Social Security (PIP) Regulations 2013, Regulation 22
Regulation (EC) 883/2004 is a relevant EU Regulation for the purposes of Regulation 22 (Section 84(2)(b), Welfare Reform Act 2012).
Welfare Reform Act 2012, Section 84(2)(b)
The Withdrawal Agreement's Article 31 provides that the rules and objectives of Regulation (EC) 883/2004 apply to persons covered by Title III.
Agreement on the Withdrawal of the UK from the EU, Article 31
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT's decision and remade it.
The FTT erred in law by misinterpreting the effect of the 2020 Regulations on Regulation (EC) 883/2004. The UT held that Article 31 of the Withdrawal Agreement ensured the application of Regulation 883/2004's rules and objectives, satisfying Regulation 22.
The Secretary of State is to proceed with ES's claim for PIP.
ES met the criteria of Regulation 22, as the rules and objectives of Regulation (EC) 883/2004 apply due to Article 31 of the Withdrawal Agreement.