SM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UHC)
[2023] UKUT 176 (AAC)
R.R. v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
28 August 2024
[2024] UKUT 261 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A mother's daughter goes to university but comes home during holidays. The government decided the daughter didn't live with her mother because she spent more time at uni. The court ruled this was wrong. It's not just about how much time someone spends at each place; it's about where they really live, considering all aspects of their life.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning the proper legal test for determining whether a person "normally lives" in accommodation with a renter under the Universal Credit scheme.
- •Appellant is a single parent whose elder daughter attends university in Manchester, returning home for vacations.
- •DWP denied additional bedroom allowance and claimed overpayment, based on daughter spending more time at university.
- •First-tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed both appeals, applying a time-based test.
- •Appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT).
Legal Principles
The test for determining whether a person is a non-dependant is not simply a measure of time spent at an address, but a holistic assessment of all relevant factors.
Paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 4 to the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/376), case law in CH/4004/2004, Stroud DC v JG (HB) [2009] UKUT 67 (AAC), SK v South Hams DC (HB) [2010] UKUT 129 (AAC)
A person can only "normally" live or reside in one place for social security benefit purposes.
JP v Bournemouth BC (HB) [2018] UKUT 75 (AAC)
Overpayments of Universal Credit are recoverable regardless of fault (section 71ZB Social Security Administration Act 1992).
Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal allowed both appeals.
The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by applying an incorrect legal test (a simple time-based test) in determining whether the appellant's daughter was a non-dependant. A holistic assessment of all relevant factors was required.
The FTT decisions were set aside.
The decisions were based on an error of law.
The case was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration.
A new tribunal will make further findings of fact about the daughter's living arrangements, applying the correct legal test.