AM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judges Jacobs,Wikeley,Wright |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] UKUT 242 (AAC) |
| Subject Matter | Claims,payments - period of claim,Universal Credit - Other,Jacobs,E,Wikeley,N,Wright,S,Three Judge Panel |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Published date | 21 September 2022 |
AM v SSWP (UC)
[2022] 242 UKUT (AAC)
1
Case No: UA-2022-000041-USTA
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
ON APPEAL FROM THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL (SOCIAL ENTITLEMENT
CHAMBER)
Before :
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JACOBS
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WIKELEY
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WRIGHT
A. M. Appellant
and
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS Respondent
Tom Royston (instructed by Child Poverty Action Group) for AM
Jack Holborn (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 15 & 16 June 2022
Decision date: 1 September 2022
DECISION
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-
tier Tribunal made on 25 March 2021 under case number SC314/20/00689 was made
in error of law. Under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007 we set that decision aside and remit the case to be reconsidered
by a fresh tribunal, at an oral hearing, and in accordance with the law as set out below.
UA-2022-000041-USTA
AM v SSWP (UC) [2022] 242 UKUT (AAC)
2
REASONS
Glossary
We use the following abbreviations in these reasons:
‘UC’ for Universal Credit
‘CPAG’ for the Child Poverty Action Group
‘DWP’ for the Department for Work and Pensions
‘the Administration Act’ for the Social Security Administration Act 1992
‘the 1998 Act’ for the Social Security Act 1998
‘the 2013 Regulations’ for the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment,
Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and
Payments) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/380)
‘the 1987 Regulations’ for the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations
1987 (SI 1987/1967)
‘the 1981 Regulations’ for the Supplementary Benefit (Claims and Payments)
Regulations 1981
Introduction
1. The issue at the heart of this appeal may in ordinary language be said to concern
the basis on which entitlement to UC can be ‘backdated’ under regulation 26 of the
2013 Regulations. ‘Backdating’ is the language the First-tier Tribunal used in its
decision and it is language both parties have used in their submissions on this
appeal. However, the ‘backdating’ of a claim is not something with which the
language of the legislation is strictly concerned, and it is the legislative language
we have to grapple with on this appeal. Instead, the legislation identifies particular
circumstances where the Secretary of State is obliged to extend the time for
claiming UC, by up to one month, back from the date on which the claim was in fact
made.
2. The particular issue with which we are concerned is not about any of those
identified circumstances but rather whether there needs to be a claim (either explicit
or implicit) made to extend the time for claiming UC.
3. The Appellant’s primary case is that there is no requirement, on making a UC claim,
to indicate the date from which the claimant wants an award to begin (indeed, there
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
PR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
...the parties accepted that I was bound to follow the three-judge panel’s decision on regulation 26 and ‘backdating’ in AM v SSWP (UC) [2022] UKUT 242 (AAC). The effect of the decision in AM is that no identifiable claim for ‘backdating’ had to have been made by the appellant on 26 October Wh......
-
WB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC)
...in law in one of two alternative ways. 3. First, in the light of the decision in AM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC) [2022] UKUT 242 (AAC), it erred in law in deciding the appeal against appellant on the basis (as the tribunal said at the end of paragraph 7 of its reasons) th......