The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v SV
[2023] UKUT 279 (AAC)
RA v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
15 July 2024
[2024] UKUT 207 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
The government wrongly stopped someone's benefits. A court decided the government didn't follow the correct rules and ordered the benefits to be reinstated because there was no good reason to stop them.
Key Facts
- •Appellant's universal credit claim was approved on May 1, 2020, but later cancelled on June 17, 2021, resulting in an overpayment claim of £5328.57.
- •The cancellation was due to the appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to verify his identity and travel details, despite an initial verification under a Covid-19 'Trust & Protect' policy.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) upheld the Secretary of State's decision, relying on regulation 45 of the UC (D&A) Regulations 2013.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) found the FTT's decision and the Secretary of State's initial decision to be in error of law.
Legal Principles
First-tier Tribunals should be wary of accepting the DWP's submissions at face value without sufficient evidence.
FO v SSWP (UC) [2022] UKUT 56 (AAC)
A claim for a relevant benefit ceases to subsist once a decision is made by the Secretary of State; there is no statutory basis for subsequently 'closing' the claim.
Section 8 of the Social Security Act 1998
A decision awarding benefit is a final decision unless appealed; it can only be changed by revision (section 9) or supersession (section 10) of the Social Security Act 1998, with proper grounds and evidence.
Section 17(1) of the Social Security Act 1998
Regulation 45 of the UC (D&A) Regs allows for suspension of benefit payments, but not termination of entitlement, unless the requirements of regulation 47 are met.
Regulation 45 and 47 of the UC (D&A) Regulations 2013
The Secretary of State must provide the FTT with relevant documents and legal basis for their decisions; the FTT should not simply follow the Secretary of State's submissions.
IS v Craven DC (HB) [2013] UKUT 9 (AAC), rule 24(2)(e) and (4)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008
Policies affecting claimants should be made known to them.
NM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (JSA) [2016] UKUT 0351 (AAC)
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The FTT's decision and the Secretary of State's decisions were based on an error of law. There was no proper legal basis for ending the appellant's entitlement to universal credit from the date it was awarded.
The FTT's decisions were set aside.
The FTT failed to engage with the relevant statutory basis for removing the appellant's entitlement to universal credit and relied on an incorrect legal interpretation.
The Upper Tribunal gave the decision the FTT ought to have given.
The appellant remains entitled to universal credit from March 27, 2020, and was not overpaid.