CPAG search

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

Displaying 577 - 588 of 1819

KR v SSWP (CA)

[2023] UKUT 202 (AAC)

Earnings – zero hours contract and fluctuating earnings

Decision in brief

Calculation under Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1996 – averaging under regulation 8(3)(b) where has been more than one change and there is no recognisable cycle of work – tribunal wrongly failed to apply that on the facts – the period taken into account in the averaging exercise under 8(3)(b) could include earnings before the second change – not restricted to period beginning after the second change – but nothing in that obviously requires changes to decisions on past period of entitlement

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2021-001544-CA
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

KI v SSWP

[2023] UKUT 212 (AAC)

Child tax credit – HMRC unaware of disability living allowance award to child

Decision in brief

Backdating of disabled child element for previous tax years for ‘official error’ – failure of information sharing system between DWP and HMRC not an ‘official error’ for purposes of the Tax Credits (Official Error) Regulations 2003 (AG v HMRC [2013] UKUT 530 (AAC) cited) – claimant was under a duty to report changes and to correct notifications sent to her by HMRC – failure by claimant to notify a change of circumstances was the cause of the underpayment (AM v HMRC (TC) [2015] UKUT 345 (AAC) and JP v HMRC (TC) [2013] UKUT 519 (AAC) cited)

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2018-000285-TC
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

SSWP v GK (ESA)

[2023] UKUT 273 (AAC)

Carer’s allowance (CA) – no requirement for the agreement or consent by the cared-for person to a claim being made

Decision in brief

Appellant was a severely disabled person on income-related employment and support allowance (ESA) and entitled to a severe disability premium – that was stopped when his mother claimed CA in respect of caring for him – claimant argued that he had not countersigned the CA claim form and did not consent to the claim being made and that therefore he should remain entitled to the premium – held that the claimant’s consent to the CA claim was not legally relevant to that claim and the absence of his countersignature on the claim form did not render the claim invalid

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2023-SCO-000065-ESA
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

SSWP v AD (UC)

[2023] UKUT 272 (AAC)

Universal credit (UC) and student loan income

Decision in brief

Claimant accepted that she had a student loan (ie, for maintenance) – needed to use large part of it for paying tuition fees – but (contrary to argument of the claimant) this did not change the correct treatment of it as student loan income under regulation 68 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 – ‘the characterisation of the nature and amount of the financial payment made to a student is based on objective criteria relating to the source of the funds and their characterisation under the Student Support Regulations, rather than how each applicant intends to apply or actually uses the funds granted’

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2023-000542-USTA and UA-2023-000543-USTA
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

SSWP v NS

[2024] UKUT 5 (AAC)

Employment and support allowance (ESA) – overpayment of ‘old-style’ contributory ESA for failure to disclose occupational pension

Decision in brief

ESA40 booklet sent to claimants and instructions to report changes and if claimant ‘gets’ pension income – claimant reported intention to claim his occupational pension at an unspecified date, but not his later receipt of it when it commenced or subsequent increases – recovery of overpayment for failure to disclose under section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 – words in the ESA40 booklet to be given their ordinary and natural meaning – ordinary meaning of ‘get’ is clearly the language of receipt – claimant was under a clear and unambiguous obligation to report receiving the pension, which he failed to do

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2021-000249/250-ESA
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

GS v SSWP

[2024] UKUT 4 (AAC)

Tribunals – First-tier Tribunal erred in failing to include in its statement of reasons for refusing the appeal reference to claimant’s wife’s oral evidence, so leaving the claimant unable to know if it had been accepted or rejected

Decision in brief

The tribunal judge, in refusing to grant permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, then gave reasons for rejecting the wife’s evidence – but, per the decision of the Court of Appeal in R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2007] EWCA 498, the new reasons given at the permission state could form no part of the tribunal’s earlier statement of reasons – also, given that the permission was refused by the judge alone, it could not be clear that new reasons added there were the view of the tribunal panel

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2022-001714-UCW
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

Social Security Scotland v FK

[2024] UT23

Adult disability payment – First-tier Tribunal made an award of the daily living component based mainly on the effects of the claimant’s hernia

Decision in brief

Hernias ‘do not necessarily give rise to the type of substantial and sufficiently enduring type of limitation covered by the ADP [adult disability payment] regulations, particularly when potential treatments are taken into account’, and so the ‘required period condition’ for ADP entitlement was a ‘substantial question’ in this particular case – the tribunal erred by not explaining why it considered the required period condition was satisfied – decision quashed and remitted to a fresh tribunal

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal for Scotland
On
Appeal reference
UTS/AS/23/1024
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service website

London Borough of Waltham Forest v CA

[2024] UKUT 39 (AAC)

Housing benefit (HB) – overpayment recovery – tribunals

Decision in brief

Claimant overpaid HB due to starting work and not telling the local authority until almost three months later – as the claimant’s earnings had changed a number of times during the overpayment period, the First-tier Tribunal was required to make clear findings of fact in respect of each of those changes of circumstances, to enable it to determine whether the overpayments caused by the claimant first finding work and then receiving increases in income were the results of official error (AG v Calderdale Council (HB) [2016] UKUT 396 (AAC) cited and approved)

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2021-000675-HB
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

ZY v SSWP (PIP)

[2024] UKUT 163 (AAC)

Tribunals – composition - First-tier Tribunal hearing a personal independence payment (PIP) appeal erred in considering it could do so without a disability qualified member (and so be a two- rather than three-member panel) because the tribunal procedure rules did not prevent it

Decision in brief

Those rules do not deal with composition, and the Practice Statement on composition of tribunals in social security and child support cases does, so that a PIP appeal must be determined by a properly constituted three-member panel unless a specified exception (eg, agreement by the parties to the appeal) applied – none of those exceptions obviously applied in this case

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2023-001807-PIP
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

Social Security Scotland v AM

[2024] UT46

Adult disability payment – award made by First-tier Tribunal included points for daily living descriptors 8(c) and 10(b) and mobility 1(d) in light of claimant’s attendance at a special needs secondary school and ‘struggles with reading and writing’

Decision in brief

Social Security Scotland submitted tribunal had failed to recognise that there was a need for a link between the claimant’s difficulties and his physical or mental condition – but in SSWP v IV (PIP) [2016] UKUT 420 (AAC) the Upper Tribunal had, in the context of personal independence payment (PIP) and difficulties with reading, held that entitlement could take account of illiteracy for a person who could not learn to read, but not for a person who simply has not learned – in PW v SSWP [2023] UKUT 121 (AAC) it was noted that it was not necessary for a claimant to have a diagnosis in order to qualify for PIP – applying those as ‘useful guidance’ for adult disability payment (ADP), it was tolerably clear that the tribunal concluded that the claimant’s issues with reading were due to an inability to learn to read rather than being a matter of choice, and so were causally linked to a ‘mental condition’ – that being the case whether the effects of that were sufficient to score points were primarily issues of fact for the tribunal

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal for Scotland
On
Appeal reference
UTS/AS/24/0032
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service website

ST (by his appointee TT) v SSWP

[2024] UKUT 167 (AAC)

Severe disability premium – entitlement lost as carer was in receipt of carer’s allowance (CA)

Decision in brief

This was not changed by the fact that arrears of new-style employment and support allowance (ESA) were paid to the carer in her own right, with the effect (because of overlapping benefit rules) that no CA was ‘payable’ for the relevant time – fact remains that (as per the reasoning in DB (as executor of the estate of OE) v SSWP and Birmingham CC (SPC) [2018] UKUT 46) the carer was both entitled to and ‘in receipt’ of CA and so there was no entitlement to the severe disability premium (SDP)

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2023-000211-ESA and UA-2023-000212-ESA
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

ES v SSWP

[2024] UKUT 97 (AAC)

European Union co-ordination rules – Withdrawal Agreement provides that Regulation (EC) 883/2004 continues to apply

Decision in brief

On the facts of the case (the claimant still came under the Regulation, was habitually resident in Great Britain and had a ‘genuine and sufficient link’ to the UK), the claimant was therefore able to satisfy regulation 22 of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 so that the past presence test for personal independence payment (PIP) did not apply to her – tribunal wrongly considered that Regulation 883/2004 had been ‘revoked’ by UK legislation

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2023-SCO-000146-PIP
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website