KK v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2023] UKUT 151 (AAC)
SS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
9 October 2024
[2024] UKUT 327 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
The government stopped the claimant's disability payments and said he owed them money. A lower court ruled against him, but a higher court found the lower court didn't properly explain its decision. The higher court sent the case back to a different lower court for a new trial.
Key Facts
- •The appellant claimed and received DLA from 2007 until October 2016, then received PIP.
- •The Secretary of State determined the appellant wasn't entitled to DLA between November 2014 and October 2016, claiming £8141.85.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FtT) dismissed the appellant's appeal.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) granted permission to appeal, focusing on the date from which DLA entitlement ceased.
- •The UT allowed the appeal due to the FtT's inadequate reasoning regarding the effective date of DLA supersession under Regulation 7(2)(c)(ii) of the 1999 Regulations.
- •The case was remitted to a new FtT for a complete rehearing.
Legal Principles
Regulation 7(2)(c)(ii) of the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999 governs the effective date of disadvantageous DLA supersession due to a change of circumstances.
Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999, Regulation 7(2)(c)(ii)
The FtT must provide adequate reasoning to demonstrate compliance with Regulation 7(2)(c)(ii), including addressing the claimant's knowledge (or reasonable expectation of knowledge) of the obligation to notify a change of circumstances.
SM v SSWP [2021] UKUT 119 (AAC)
The 'should have been notified' in Regulation 7(2)(c)(ii) means 'was required to be notified' by regulations under the Social Security Administration Act 1992, not merely that notification might be desirable.
SM v SSWP [2021] UKUT 119 (AAC)
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The First-tier Tribunal's decision was found to be in error of law due to inadequate reasoning regarding the application of Regulation 7(2)(c)(ii) of the 1999 Regulations.
The case was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a rehearing.
A new FtT will conduct a complete rehearing, considering all aspects of the case afresh and applying the correct legal principles regarding Regulation 7(2)(c)(ii).