R.R. v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2024] UKUT 261 (AAC)
SM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UHC)
18 July 2023
[2023] UKUT 176 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A family claimed extra money for housing because their daughter needs overnight care. A judge said the daughter didn't really need that level of care, so they didn't get the extra money.
Key Facts
- •SM and his wife live with their adult daughter, P, who has heart problems and receives PIP.
- •P's mother cares for her, and occasionally family/friends stay overnight in the spare bedroom to give the mother a break.
- •SM claimed universal credit, including housing costs for an additional bedroom for overnight care.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FtT) denied the claim, finding that P did not require regular overnight care.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) considered two grounds of appeal: whether the FtT erred in assessing the need for overnight care and its approach to 'regular' overnight care.
Legal Principles
Universal Credit Regulations 2013, Schedule 4, paragraph 12(A1) defines the conditions for an additional bedroom for overnight care.
Universal Credit Regulations 2013
The meaning of "care" is determined by its context; it involves providing needed services to a person.
Case law (R(IS) 8/02, R (M) v London Borough of Slough [2008], R (BG) v Suffolk County Council [2021])
'Regularly' in the context of overnight care means 'sufficiently often,' not necessarily a majority of nights.
SD v Eastleigh Borough Council [2014], Isle of Wight Council v Platt [2017]
The policy behind the additional bedroom provision is to focus resources where needed; it is not intended to be overly generous.
Legislative history and case law (Burnip v Birmingham City Council [2013], R (MA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016])
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The FtT correctly determined that P did not require overnight care, as defined in the regulations. The care provided was not regular enough to satisfy the regulations.