JE v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SF)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Wikeley |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] UKUT 12 (AAC) |
| Subject Matter | European Union law - Council directive 79/7/EEC,Human rights law - article 14 (non-discrimination),Wikeley,N |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Published date | 09 February 2022 |
J.E. v SSWP (SF)
[2022] UKUT 12 (AAC)
1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. CIS/191/2021
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
On appeal from the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
Between: Mr J.E. Appellant
- v –
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SSWP) Respondent
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Wikeley
Decision date: 12 January 2022
Decided on consideration of the papers
Representation:
Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr W. Spencer, DMA, Department for Work and Pensions
DECISION
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal.
This decision is made under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act
2007.
J.E. v SSWP (SF) [2022] UKUT 12 (AAC)
CIS/191/2021
2
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction and background
1. This appeal is about the rules governing access to social fund winter fuel
payments and in particular the effect of the time limit for making a claim. The
winter fuel payment is a one-off lump sum payment for pensioners (and not to
be confused with social fund cold weather payments).
2. This is the Appellant’s appeal against the decision by the First-tier Tribunal (“the
Tribunal”) dated 21 October 2020. The Tribunal decided that the Appellant was
not entitled to winter fuel payments for several past years as the prescribed time
limit for claiming for each year’s payment had passed by the time he applied.
3. In summary, the Appellant argues that he has been discriminated against when
compared with the position of a woman of the same age who would (most likely)
have received an automatic award of a winter fuel payment.
4. The Appellant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal is not supported by the Secretary
of State’s representative. Having reviewed the competing arguments, I have
decided to dismiss the Appellant’s appeal. My reasons for so doing follow.
The factual background
5. The bare facts are not in dispute. The Appellant was born on 3 April 1951. He
made an advance claim for the state retirement pension in January 2016. He
was duly awarded state retirement pension with effect from 5 April 2016 (had he
been a woman, he would have qualified for a state pension some four years or
so earlier, as from 6 March 2012: see Pensions Act 1995, Schedule 4, Part I,
Table 1). In November 2016 the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)
notified the Appellant that he qualified for the winter fuel payment for the winter
of 2016/17. In April 2017 the Appellant wrote to the DWP querying his
entitlement to winter fuel payments for previous winters. The Appellant’s letter is
worth quoting in full (or almost in full) as it compendiously sets out the core of
his argument:
Dear Sirs
WINTER FUEL ALLOWANCE
COMPLAINT ON GROUNDS OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION
I was notified in November 2016 that I was entitled to the above
allowance. This was shortly after my 65th birthday, when I started to
receive my state pension.
I since discovered that I could have claimed this payment for years going
back to 2012/13 but was advised over the phone by DWP that any such
claim is now time-barred.
I understand that men who reach pension age are automatically awarded
the allowance. Before that age, men need to be aware of entitlement and
make a claim within a short time frame.
I also understand that the law was changed after a successful 1999 ECJ
case which ruled that (at that time, i.e. before changes to pension ages for
men and women) it was unlawfully discriminatory to award women the
allowance at age 60 and men at age 65. I consider that the claims process
To continue reading
Request your trial