RA v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2024] UKUT 207 (AAC)
P.H.C. v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
28 October 2024
[2024] UKUT 340 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
Someone's Universal Credit claim was rejected because they couldn't prove their identity. A higher court said the lower court made a mistake by focusing on the missing evidence instead of whether the person was actually who they said they were. The case will be heard again using the correct rules.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning a Universal Credit (UC) claim rejected due to the claimant's failure to provide evidence of identity for herself and her children.
- •Claimant, initially known as HCU, now known as PHC, experienced difficulties providing identification due to name changes and circumstances surrounding her children's schooling.
- •The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) closed the claim citing failure to provide evidence.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) upheld the DWP's decision.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the appeal, finding the FTT's decision to be an error of law.
Legal Principles
A claimant's failure to provide evidence of identity in response to a request under regulation 37 of the UC etc (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013 is not, in itself, sufficient to disallow a claim.
R(IS) 4/93, R(H) 3/05, and the analysis in paragraphs 31-33 of the UT judgment.
Sections 1(1A) and 1(1B) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 set out the correct approach to questions of a claimant's identity in relation to new claims for UC. The claimant's identity is relevant to the condition of entitlement in section 1(1A) and falls to be ascertained by way of the steps in section 1(1B).
SSAA 1992, sections 1(1A) and 1(1B), and the analysis in paragraphs 48-52 of the UT judgment.
Regulations 45 and 47 of the UC etc (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013 on suspension and termination cannot be invoked to disallow a new claim for benefit.
Analysis in paragraphs 21-27 of the UT judgment.
The ID check is not part of making a claim but part of the post-claim procedure for assessing entitlement. A claimant cannot be retrospectively denied use of the online claim regime.
R (Bui) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2023] EWCA Civ 566, and the analysis in paragraphs 37-38 of the UT judgment.
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by applying an incorrect legal approach. The FTT should have considered the claimant's identity under sections 1(1A) and 1(1B) of the SSAA 1992 instead of focusing solely on the failure to provide evidence.
The FTT's decision was set aside and the case remitted for reconsideration by a fresh tribunal.
The UT found the FTT's decision to be an error of law, requiring a rehearing with the correct legal framework applied.