RA v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2024] UKUT 207 (AAC)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v SV
11 November 2023
[2023] UKUT 279 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
The government wrongly stopped someone's benefits. A court said the government needs to look at the case again properly, focusing on whether the original decision to give the benefits was wrong because of a mistake about a key fact, and considering only evidence from the time the original decision was made.
Key Facts
- •SV, a Bulgarian national, claimed Universal Credit (UC) on 18 February 2020.
- •The Secretary of State (SoS) awarded UC on 10 March 2020, finding SV passed the habitual residence test and had genuine and effective employment.
- •The SoS reviewed SV's claim in May 2021 and revoked the UC award on 17 August 2021, finding SV failed the habitual residence test.
- •SV appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT), which dismissed the appeal.
- •The SoS's 2021 decision was based on new evidence suggesting SV's employment was potentially fraudulent.
- •The FTT mistakenly treated the appeal as against the 2021 decision rather than the 2020 decision as revised in 2021.
Legal Principles
The SoS can revise a UC decision if it was made in ignorance of, or based on a mistake as to, a material fact.
Regulation 9(b) of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker's Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013 (SI No 381)
On appeal, the tribunal shall not take into account circumstances not obtaining at the time the decision was made.
Section 12(8)(b) of the Social Security Act 1998
There is a right of appeal against the original decision as revised, even if the revision is under section 9 of the Social Security Act 1998.
Section 11 and Section 9(5) of the Social Security Act 1998
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal (UT) set aside the FTT's decision.
The FTT made errors of law in its approach to the appeal and its application of Regulation 9(b).
The case was remitted to the FTT for rehearing by a differently constituted panel.
The UT provided directions for the rehearing, clarifying the correct legal approach to assessing whether the SoS's original decision was based on a mistake of material fact.