CPAG search

If you're an adviser, you might like to try our Welfare Rights search.

Displaying 1261 - 1272 of 1721

SSWP v AB (BB)

[2022] UKUT 83 (AAC)

Bereavement support payment – refusal on ground of not being the spouse/civil partner of the deceased

Decision in brief

Claimant relied on Scots law of marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute – that was abolished by section 3(1) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006, but an exception applies where the relationship began before 4 May 2006, as was the case here – however, it is still required that the parties had the legal capacity to marry and where, as in this case, one of the parties (the person now deceased) was still married to an ex-partner, that requirement was not satisfied – the claimant was therefore unable to be married by cohabitation and repute

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2021- SCO-000030-BB
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

GM v SSWP (RP)

[2022] UKUT 85 (AAC)

Category B retirement pension – whether claim necessary by married woman

Decision in brief

Where the claimant’s husband received his category A pension before 17 March 2008, to get a category B pension based on her husband’s contributions, to top up her own category A pension, they had to (and have always had to) make a claim for that category B pension – where the husband received his category A pension on or after 17 March 2008, they do not need to make a claim for the latter benefit – the husband’s own post-2008 category A pension claim will itself trigger an award of the wife’s category B pension where appropriate – that arises from the context and language of the relevant rule at regulation 3(1)(cb)(i) of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 – regulation is not in breach of human rights anti-discrimination rules

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2021- 001262-RP
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

CB v SSWP (PIP)

[2022] UKUT 100 (AAC)

Personal independence payment – Activity 2 (taking nutrition) – whether dentures can be an ‘aid or appliance’ to be able to take nutrition

Decision in brief

Judge declined to decide the question – but was prepared to indicate disagreement with First-tier Tribunal that for dentures to count as an aid or appliance, they must assist with both chewing and swallowing: ‘I have formed what is only an opinion, albeit I have to say a very strongly held one, that for an item to count as an aid or appliance for the purpose of taking nutrition it does not need to assist with more than one of the necessary components’ set out in the definition of ‘take nutrition’.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2021- 002048-PIP
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

SC v SSWP (PIP)

[2022] UKUT 97 (AAC)

Mobility component after pension age – inability to start getting mobility component after pension age

Decision in brief

Claimant had been entitled to personal independence payment including the mobility component after pension age (65 in the present case) – but that had been removed on review and that decision had not been challenged – although claimant had a deterioration in her mobility aged 68, could not start to get the mobility component again on supersession as that was not a part of the ‘original award’ (ie, her current award) – regulation 27 of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2020-001502-PIP
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

CK v SSWP (PIP); JM v SSWP (PIP)

[2022] UKUT 122 (AAC)

Amendments made by the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (SI No.194) regarding Activity 3 (Managing therapy or monitoring a health condition), in an attempt to reverse effect of the decision of the Upper Tribunal in SSWP v LB (PIP) [2016] UKUT 0530 (AAC) – not unlawful

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2018-002190-PIP and UA-2020-000227-PIP
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

WH v Powys CC and SSWP

[2022] UKUT 203 (AAC)

Right to reside – self-sufficient with comprehensive sickness insurance

Decision in brief

Claimant had lived in Wales since 1986 – would have been considered ordinarily resident in Wales for healthcare purposes and indeed had been an NHS patient between 1986 and 2016 – given decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in VI v HMRC, Case C247/20, his access to free NHS treatment constituted ‘comprehensive sickness insurance’ for the purposes of his claim to housing benefit in December 2016, and as there was no question about his self-sufficiency until 2014, he had already acquired a permanent right to reside

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2019-001384-HB
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

NP v SSWP (II)

[2022] UKUT 279 (AAC)

Industrial injuries disablement benefit – prescribed disease PD D7 Occupational asthma

Decision in brief

Tribunal in refusing the appeal provided an adequately reasoned conclusion for its finding that the claimant experienced work-aggravated asthma rather than work-caused occupational asthma - reference to ‘any other sensitising agent’ – any inadequacy in the tribunal’s explanation as to why coal dust was not a relevant ‘sensitising agent’ for the purposes of a PD D7 claim was not material to the outcome in this case

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2019-002304-II
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

KL v SSWP (JSA)

[2022] UKUT 270 (AAC)

National insurance credits for unemployment – late claim by claimant not entitled to jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) – claim for 2017/18 tax year made in 2021

Decision in brief

Not required to be a claimant of JSA by relevant rule in regulation 8A of Social Security (Credits) Regulations 1987 – late claims possible by virtue of regulation 8A(3) where lateness is ‘reasonable in the circumstances of the case’ – that is a question of fact not law – tribunal made adequate findings of fact before finding that was not a satisfied and made no error of law

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2021-000720-JSA
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

MZ v HMRC

[2020] UKUT 65 (AAC)

Child benefit – claimant not entitled under domestic law or European Union (EU) law

Decision in brief

Claimant lives in Poland with her daughter and neither have ever lived in UK – former husband lives in UK but does not contribute to the cost of providing for her – claimant not entitled under domestic law as neither she nor her daughter have been present in UK or ordinarily resident here – EU law does not help the claimant as she works in Poland, which is the competent state, and her daughter lives with her in Poland rather than in another EU state – former husband is working in the UK which is his competent state, but cannot be entitled as his daughter does not, and cannot be treated as, living with him and he is not contributing to the cost of providing for her – European Court of Justice decision in Slanina v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien (Case C363/08) distinguished on its facts.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CF/2685/2018
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

MA v SSWP (PIP)

[2020] UKUT 172 (AAC)

Tribunals – set-aside of First-tier Tribunal decision - must be on the basis of an application – cannot be on basis of a request for a statement of reasons – tribunal cannot decide to set-aside on its own volition – ie, without an application

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CPIP/2140/2019
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

KK v Liverpool CC (HB)

[2020] UKUT 80 (AAC)

Tribunals – not limited to judicial review considerations or evidence in existence at time of decision

Decision in brief

The First-tier Tribunal in deciding an appeal afresh is not exercising a judicial review jurisdiction nor should it limit itself to reviewing whether the process by which the respondent came to its decision was fair, legal and rational – evidence produced after the date of decision under appeal can still be considered as long as it is relevant to the circumstances at the date of the decision.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CH/1766/2019
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

HO’H v SSWP (PIP)

[2020] UKUT 135 (AAC)

Personal independence payment (PIP) mobility descriptor 1(d) (‘cannot follow the route of a journey…’) – physical health problems and inability to use public transport

Decision in brief

Reference to scoring for inability to use public transport in the PIP Assessment Guide is merely DWP guidance and not the law – in any case the context of the guidance is on scoring for mobility Activity 1 being for mental health, cognitive or sensory impairment, not physical impairment – nothing in the lead decision on Activity 1, MH v SSWP (PIP) [2016] UKUT 531 (AAC); [2018] AACR 12, suggests a purely physical health problem in getting from A to B leads to entitlement under descriptor 1(d).

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CPIP/302/2019
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website