SOCIAL SECURITY: MISCELLANEOUS: UPPER TRIBUNAL CASES 2019/20
Here I look at Upper Tribunal decisions, that is decisions on appeal, in relation to Social Security.
All of the information in all of these posts is taken directly from the Senior President of Tribunals’ Annual Report 2020, which is an invaluable and free resource dealing with all aspect of the work of tribunals as well as setting out these summaries of key cases.
The whole report can be accessed here.
Administrative Appeals Chamber: Social Security: Miscellaneous
| Citation | Parties | Jurisdiction | Commentary |
| [2019] UKUT 144 (AAC) | NA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (BB) | Social Security | The Upper Tribunal decided that the surviving partner of a religious marriage recognised in Pakistan, but not recognised in England and Wales, was entitled to a bereavement payment and widowed parent’s allowance. The State’s refusal to provide the appellant with a bereavement payment is contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights read in conjunction with Article 1 of the First Protocol and the difference in treatment was not objectively justified and proportionate as per Re McLaughlin [2018] UKSC 48. For the purposes of entitlement to both bereavement payment and widowed parent’s allowance, the relevant secondary legislation (the Social Security and Family Allowances (Polygamous Marriages) Regulations 1975 (SI 1975/561)) can be read down under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 so as to be Convention-compliant. |
| [2019] UKUT 203 (AAC) | JB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) | Social Security | The Upper Tribunal decided that the First-tier Tribunal had erred by failing to adequately enquire into and through failing to make any findings about the claimant’s ability to follow the route of an unfamiliar journey without another person, even if it can be assumed that the entirety of any such journey could be undertaken by driving. It follows that even where the bulk of the journey may be accomplished by driving there must be at least small parts of it, which will have to be accomplished by other means. |
| [2019] UKUT 207 (AAC) | RT v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) | Social Security | The Upper Tribunal decided that the First-tier Tribunal had failed to consider how to facilitate the giving of evidence by a vulnerable adult as required by the Practice Statement; First Tier and Upper Tribunal – Child, Vulnerable Adult and Sensitive Witnesses. Such consideration must be undertaken consciously and it is good practice for the tribunal to note in the record of proceedings that this has occurred, and failing that, at the least, any written statement of reasons must refer to the fact that the tribunal considered how to facilitate the giving of evidence by the claimant and explain what the tribunal had decided giving a brief explanation. |
| [2019] UKUT 361 (AAC) | AM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and City and County of Swansea Council | Social Security | The Upper Tribunal decided that there was no “secondary” or contingent right to reside under European Union law as the primary carer of an under school age child where that child’s right to reside is based on his being the family member of the other parent, who has a right to reside, but where the child’s primary carer is not a family member of that other parent. It further decided that there was no right of residence arising as an extended family member when there was no residence document in place. The Upper Tribunal also decided that there is no power for the Upper Tribunal to award costs on an appeal from the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. |
| [2020] UKUT 28 (AAC) | BN v (1) Liverpool City Council (2) Secretary of State for Work and Pensions | Social Security | The Upper Tribunal decided that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law and the claimant is entitled to housing benefit to cover the payments by way of service charge on the property which her late father occupied as his home. It decided that the tenancy of the property is a shared ownership tenancy granted by a housing association and is within the exception in paragraph 12(2)(a) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 to the prohibition on payment of a rent allowance in respect of periodical payments made under a long tenancy. |
| [2020] UKUT 48 (AAC) | Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v AJ (UC) | Social Security | The Upper Tribunal considered this appeal by the Secretary of State in a universal credit case where the claimant had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. It decided that a claim to universal credit made on release fell within regulation 22 of the Universal Credit (Temporary Provisions) Regulations 2014 so that the Limited Capability for Work Related Activity element of the award ran from three months after the date of claim and the effect of imprisonment on entitlement to income support was suspensory. |
| [2019] UKUT 415 (AAC) | SW v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions | Social Security | The Upper Tribunal decided that a reconvened hearing in the First-tier Tribunal must be before exactly the same panel or a completely different one. |
Kerry Underwood 
Leave a comment