CPAG search

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

Displaying 721 - 732 of 2000

PW v SSWP

[2025] UKUT 26 (AAC)

Carer’s allowance – backdating after award of a qualifying benefit

Decision in brief

Regulation 6(33) of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 – after improved award of personal independence payment by a tribunal – claim must be made within three months of the tribunal decision – but in this case the claimant made the claim 11 days before the tribunal made its decision – so backdating on this basis could not apply

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2023-000662-CA
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

IS v SSWP (PIP)

[2025] UKUT 20 (AAC)

Second claim while appeal pending – original claim refused and under appeal when second claim was made and refused

Decision in brief

Tribunal deciding appeal for original claim made an award and correctly limited the period of the award to the day before the date of the second claim – GG v SSWP (PIP) [2019] UKUT 318 (AAC) applied and followed

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2023-001342-PIP
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

AET v SSWP

[2025] UKUT 16 (AAC)

Bereavement support payment – entitlement where claimant was a cohabiting partner with dependent children, introduced by the Bereavement Benefits (Remedial) Order 2023

Decision in brief

Applies only to claims made after the date of the coming into force of the Order on 9 February 2023 – claims made before that date still fall to be determined with reference to the previous rules (ie, which did not provide for claimants who were a cohabiting partner, as the requirement was that they were married to, or in a civil partnership with, the deceased partner)

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2023-001878-BB
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

SSWP v KK (JSA)

[2019] UKUT 313 (AAC)

Right to reside and relevance of law as at date of decision

Decision in brief

Claimant, a Polish national, claimed jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) in March 2009, but by the time the decision on the claim was made, dated 2 May 2009, it had been held in the Upper Tribunal that the extension of the Worker Registration Scheme with effect from 1 May 2009 was unlawful – therefore, by the date of the decision in his case, the law no longer prevented the claimant from having a right to reside for JSA as a jobseeker.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CJSA/1933/2010
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

RK v SSWP (ESA)

[2019] UKUT 345 (AAC)

Work capability assessment – Activity 7 (understanding communication)

Decision in brief

Claimant who could not hear speech and could only understand a written message if written in Urdu – restriction to Urdu not a sensory impairment and so not relevant to Activity 7 – but tribunal erred in requiring claimant to be impaired in understanding both verbal and non-verbal communication – in order to satisfy a descriptor a claimant needs to be impaired in understanding either spoken or written communication, but does not need to be impaired in both (AT and VC v SSWP (ESA) [2015] UKUT 445 (AAC)).

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CE/2918/2019
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

NN v HMRC (TC)

[2019] UKUT 386 (AAC)

Tribunals – credibility of claimant and fact finding

Decision in brief

Tribunal did not believe that claimant had been working or incurred and paid for childcare fees – tribunal took the correct approach to credibility and adequately explained its decision – principally relied on what the claimant said in evidence, not on how she appeared when giving it – cited inconsistencies, implausibilities and contradictions – tribunals do need to be aware of cultural issues when evaluating evidence but that is not a guarantee that evidence will be found to be credible – tribunal arranged an all-female tribunal environment to take account of the claimant’s religious sensitivities.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CTC/1937/2018
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

GG v SSWP (PIP)

[2019] UKUT 318 (AAC)

Tribunals – where claimant has a decision under appeal but in the meantime makes a fresh claim for the same benefit and that claim is decided by the decision maker

Decision in brief

Section 17(1) of the Social Security Act 1998 on finality of decisions (as explained in CSDLA/237/2003) means that as there cannot be two or more overlapping decisions concerning the same period; the tribunal considering the original appeal is limited to considering the period up to the date of the decision on the fresh claim – decision on the fresh claim must be challenged separately.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CPIP/2948/2018
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

DS v SSWP (ESA)

[2019] UKUT 347 (AAC)

Tribunals – adequacy of reasons

Decision in brief

Function of the Upper Tribunal in reasons appeals is to decide whether the [First-tier] tribunal’s decision on the substantial question in issue leaves the informed reader in no real and substantial doubt why it reached the conclusions it did – tribunal in this employment and support allowance case clearly addressed the points and activities put in issue and dealt with the substantial questions in an intelligible way, leaving no real or substantial doubt as to the reasons for the decision and what material considerations were taken into account.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CSE/303/2019
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

BL v SSWP (ESA)

[2019] UKUT 364 (AAC)

Right to reside – permanent incapacity for work having resided in UK for more than two years

Decision in brief

Regulation 5(3) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 – ‘permanent’ does not mean ‘unchanging’ or ‘lasting for a long time’, but rather that there is not a ‘realistic prospect of a return to work within the foreseeable future’.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

Allerdale BC v JD and others (by their respective appointees) (HB)

[2019] UKUT 304 (AAC)

Ineligible service charges

Decision in brief

‘Charges in respect of general counselling or of any other support services, whoever provides those services’ as per paragraph 1(f) of Schedule 1 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 – must be applied with a ‘historically-based approach’, so that the deliberate exclusion of such services that previously were eligible because of their connection with the provision of adequate accommodation is adopted.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CH/28,31,34 and 36/2019
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

AM v SSWP and City and County of Swansea Council

[2019] UKUT 361 (AAC)

Right to reside – primary carer (in this case, the mother) of a child under school age who is the child of a European Union (EU) worker (the father)

Decision in brief

Whether primary carer had a ‘secondary’ or ‘contingent’ right to reside based on the right to reside of the child who was the family member of his father (under Article 7(1)(d) of Directive 2004/38/EC) – no such ‘secondary’ right to reside – no principle in EU caselaw which provides that where a child has a right to reside, the primary carer of that child must also have a right to reside in order to render the child’s right effective – such a principle could not be reconciled with the terms and purposes of the Directive.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CJSA/1637/2017, CIS/1888/2017, CH/1889/2017
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

AA v SSWP

[2019] UKUT 324 (AAC)

Tribunals – inconsistency between decision notice and summary of reasons is an error of law

Decision in brief

Tribunal notice reference to having placed ‘particular reliance’ on the evidence of the appellant was in conflict with the summary of reasons, which showed that in fact the tribunal had rejected that evidence – the phrase ‘particular reliance’ appears in the standard wording of the computer template used by the Social Entitlement Chamber, but is editable and should not be used as general ‘boilerplate’ wording.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CPIP/2901/2018
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website