Student on universal credit not taking loan due to religious beliefs

The Judge found that the First-tier Tribunal had failed to explain why it considered it 'reasonable' for the claimant to have acquired a student maintenance loan.

The student was on universal credit (UC) with her partner and started a full-time course. She declined to apply for a student maintenance loan because the interest-bearing nature of the loan was contrary to her religious beliefs. DWP took the loan she could have got into account as ‘notional income’ – as the UC regulations say the student loan for maintenance is taken into account for UC if you get such a loan, or if you could acquire one by taking ‘reasonable steps’.

Judge Church found that the First-tier Tribunal failed to explain how its findings were consistent with existing case law, specifically IB v Gravesham BC and SSWP [2023] UKUT 193 (AAC), in which Judge Poynter held that 'reasonable steps' to acquire a student loan (in the context of housing benefit (HB) regulations, which are in similar terms to the UC regulations) means steps that are reasonable in all the circumstances, including all the personal characteristics of the individual. He found that in this case it would not have been reasonable for the Muslim student to take the necessary steps.

As a result, Judge Church holds that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law. He set the decisions aside to be considered afresh, taking into account the HB caselaw. Read DM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions