CPAG search

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

Displaying 781 - 792 of 2000

SE v SSWP (PIP)

[2021] UKUT 1 (AAC)

Claimant with borderline learning disability – re Activity 2 (reading and understanding), ‘basic written information’ refers to very basic information, but not so basic as to be of no practical use or value

Decision in brief

‘Prompting’ in this test is different from ‘explanation’ where the claimant actually does not read or understand the information – reference to signs and symbols in definition of ‘basic information’ does not mean the test does not require ability to read and understand words – prompting can relate to requirement that the activity is carried out to a reasonable standard – not being able to do it ‘at all’ does not require inability to read/understand literally no words – re Activity 10 (budgeting) there is also a need to consider the need for assistance/prompting – merely paying bills is not conclusive evidence of ability to ‘make decisions’, and to ‘know’ the price of an item is not the same as knowing how to calculate the price.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CPIP/1653/2019(V)
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

XTC v SSWP (DLA)

[2020] UKUT 342 (AAC)

Disability living allowance – higher rate mobility component for severe mental impairment and behavioural problems

Decision in brief

Tribunal erred in law in giving inadequate reasons for why it refused to admit the claimant’s father’s video evidence, why it made the findings it did as to how much time the claimant spent in the autism unit, or why his parents watching him as he made the journey between his home and his grandparents’ home did not amount to ‘supervision’ – the tribunal also erred in finding that the claimant’s playing with his penis in public was not ‘extremely disruptive’ behaviour – the behaviour does not have to be violent to be ‘extremely disruptive’ and to regularly require intervention to prevent injury.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CDLA/2600/2019
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

SSWP v GB (IS)

[2020] UKUT 316 (AAC)

Social fund funeral payment – deduction from award of lump sum due from insurance policy on death of deceased

Decision in brief

Fact that insurance policy had ‘matured’ by the time of the death and that claimant could have claimed the money on grounds other than the person’s death irrelevant – if the money was legally due to the claimant on the person’s death, that will be deductible (PA v SSWP [2010] UKUT 157 (AAC) cited) – but it is relevant whether or not the money was actually due, claimed and paid due to the person’s death.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CIS/1728/2019
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

SSWP v AS (CA)

[2021] UKUT 24 (AAC)

Person subject to immigration control – exemption from exclusion from entitlement to non-means-tested benefits

Decision in brief

Family member of European Economic Area (EEA) national – requires the EEA national to have exercised free movement rights – CDLA/708/2007 approved – contrary approach in JFP v Department for Social Development (DLA) [2012] NICom 267 not followed.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CG/2617/2019(V)
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

PA v HMRC (TC)

[2020] UKUT 324 (AAC)

Tribunals – claimant subject to an order had been made by the Court of Session under section 1 of the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898 prohibiting the institution of legal proceedings by the claimant in a ‘court’

Decision in brief

The First-tier Tribunal is a ‘court’ for those purposes and the claimant did not have the required leave – the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to determine the appeal and should have struck it out – Upper Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the claimant’s application for leave to appeal against the tribunal decision but as there should have been no such appeal, permission to appeal is refused.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CSTC/466/2019 (V)
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

N v HMRC (CHB)

[2021] UKUT 28 (AAC)

Right to reside – street musician/busker not ‘self-employed’ for right to reside purposes

Decision in brief

No agreement about level of ‘remuneration’ received for the work – the giving of donations by passers-by does not involve a common understanding as to the amount of remuneration provided to the street musician, and there is also a good argument that, for the same reason, it does not involve remuneration at all.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CF/1789/2016
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

LG v SSWP (PIP)

[2020] UKUT 343 (AAC)

Mobility – where claimant has walked at an airport when undertaking a trip abroad

Decision in brief

Guidance about proper approach to this (ie, so as to take proper account of pain, distance, halts, etc) in JT v SSWP (DLA) [2013] UKUT 221 (AAC) also applies to mobility Activity 2 test in personal independence payment, even though JT was a decision about the highest rate of the mobility component of disability living allowance – although statutory tests are not identical, similarities are such that JT should apply in context of consideration of ability to walk in an airport.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CPIP/2851/2019
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

KG v SSWP (UC)

[2020] UKUT 307 (AAC)

Sanctions – universal credit

Decision in brief

Claimant given a low level sanction for failure to attend a telephone appointment with job centre and so fulfil a work-related requirement, despite the fact that, on the day after not taking part, he submitted evidence from his GP that he was suffering from a stomach complaint – in refusing the claimant’s appeal, the First-tier Tribunal erred in not adequately addressing whether the claimant had been sufficiently notified of the requirement to take part in a work-focused interview and of the consequences for not doing so (JB v SSWP (UC) [2018] UKUT 360 (AAC) cited) – in addition, the tribunal erred in failing to give adequate consideration to the claimant’s health condition – on the facts, the claimant had not been properly notified and did have good reason and so no sanction was applicable.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CUC/563/2020
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

HMRC v AD (CHB)

[2020] UKUT 353 (AAC)

Child benefit – Zambrano right to reside not effective for entitlement

Decision in brief

It did not matter for this purpose that at the time of the relevant decision, regulation 23(4)(b)(i) of the Child Benefit (General) Regulations 2006 referred to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, when they had been replaced by Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (Schedule 7 to the 2016 Regulations ensured that regulation 23(4)(b)(i) was taken to refer to the 2016 Regulations).

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CF/2239/2019
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

EE v SSWP (CPIP)

[2021] UKUT 17 (AAC)

Mobility – ability to plan and follow the route of a journey

Decision in brief

Fear of dogs – may in principle be taken into account if a fear of dogs sufficient to lead to overwhelming psychological distress is present when a person is unaccompanied outdoors and attempting to follow the route of a journey, and is attributable to a physical or mental condition, and does impact adversely upon a person’s ability to follow the route of a journey, and is capable of being sufficiently reduced by the presence of another while the route is being followed.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CPIP/596/2020
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

CT v SSWP (ESA)

[2021] UKUT 6 (AAC)

Overpayment and application of civil penalty – claimant was overpaid due to failure to disclose his occupational pension

Decision in brief

A £50 civil penalty was also imposed under section 115D of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 regarding the failure to disclose – tribunal erred in both in failing to find that the claimant had ‘reasonable excuse’ for the failure, and in not exercising discretion about whether the penalty, even if applicable, should in fact have been applied – Secretary of State’s argument that the only criterion in the latter question is the amount of the overpayment (in particular whether it exceeded the Secretary of State’s ‘small overpayment threshold’) rejected as too narrow and restrictive – on the facts, claimant had a reasonable excuse for the failure to disclose in the light of his health problems; alternatively, a penalty should not have been applied on the particular facts of the case.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CE/2770/20219, CE/145/2020 and CE/146/2020
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website

BH v SSWP (PIP)

[2020] UKUT 338 (AAC)

Tribunals – whether First-tier Tribunal, in considering refusal to award the claimant personal independence payment (PIP) on transfer from high rates of both components of disability living allowance (DLA), adequately explained its decision not to adjourn to get the DLA evidence

Decision in brief

Tribunal cited fact that the DLA evidence was five years old and that claimant had not requested the evidence – clear from CH and KN v SSWP [2018] UKUT 330 (AAC) that ultimately it is for the tribunal to make its own judgement as to whether DLA evidence might be relevant in a PIP appeal – it would be relatively rare for the Upper Tribunal to seek to interfere with decisions about that – but where the tribunal does expressly consider whether to obtain DLA evidence, it ought offer ‘a simple and succinct, perhaps even very succinct’ explanation of a decision not to do so – on facts of this case, the tribunal had narrowly failed to give an adequate explanation.

Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CPIP/401/2020
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
Read the judgment on the GOV.UK website