DT v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor (CSM)
[2023] UKUT 175 (AAC)
NO v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor
29 October 2024
[2024] UKUT 342 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A father challenged a child support calculation. The first court used a possibly wrong tax number. The appeal court said the first court should have checked the number properly and sent the case back to be done again with the correct information.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against a child support maintenance calculation decision of £216.31 per week.
- •Dispute centered on the accuracy of the HMRC figure used for the 2020/21 tax year, allegedly due to a tax error involving company cars.
- •First-tier Tribunal (FTT) used the provided HMRC figure despite reservations about its reliability.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) found the FTT erred in law by not requesting a new HMRC figure when doubts existed about the accuracy of the initial figure.
- •The UT remitted the case back to the FTT for a rehearing.
Legal Principles
The FTT is not bound by an unreliable HMRC figure and has a duty to investigate and obtain accurate information.
AR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKUT 151 (AAC), BK v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] UKUT 283 (AAC), SB v (1) Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, (2) TB (CSM) [2016] UKUT 0084 (AAC)
RTI data from HMRC is not considered an 'HMRC figure' as defined in reg.36(1) of the 2012 Regulations.
AR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKUT 151 (AAC)
More than one HMRC figure can be requested, and a new figure may be used even if it changes after the Secretary of State's initial decision (due to retrospective application of s.20(7)(b) of the 1991 Act).
FQ v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKUT 446 (AAC), BK v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] UKUT 283 (AAC)
The FTT is not obliged to accept figures provided by the appellant but must properly investigate inconsistencies.
BK v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] UKUT 283 (AAC)
Outcomes
The FTT's decision was set aside.
The FTT erred in law by failing to investigate and request a new, more accurate HMRC figure when doubts existed about the initial figure provided.
The appeal was remitted to the FTT for rehearing.
Further findings of fact were required, and the FTT must request a further HMRC figure.
Similar Cases
WK v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor
[2024] UKUT 7 (AAC)
LF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor (CSM)
[2024] UKUT 136 (AAC)
DG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor
[2023] UKUT 238 (AAC)
DB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor.
[2023] UKUT 70 (AAC)