JL v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] UKUT 9 (AAC) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
2022 Jan 19
Upper Tribunal Judge
Social security - Welfare benefits - Universal credit - Claimant in receipt of housing benefit making online claim for universal credit - Computer system accepting basic conditions for claim met and notifying local authority - Claimant thereafter purporting to withdraw claim and submitting further claim for housing benefit - Housing benefit claim refused on basis that universal credit claim having effect of transferring claimant outside scope of housing benefit scheme - Whether universal credit claim validly made - Whether validly withdrawn - Effect of purported withdrawal for purposes of transitional provisions governing move from legacy benefits to universal credit -
The claimant, who was in receipt of housing benefit, submitted an online claim for universal credit but changed his mind the same day and asked to withdraw it. However, by that time the computer system had already accepted that the claimant met the basic conditions in section 4(1)(a) to (d) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012F1 for an award of universal credit and had notified the local authority. The claimant submitted a further claim for housing benefit to the local authority but that claim was refused on the basis that the universal credit claim had the effect of transferring the claimant outside the scope of the housing benefit scheme. On the same day, the Secretary of State wrote to the claimant indicating that the universal credit claim had been closed because the claimant had failed to attend his initial interview. On appeal to the First-tier Tribunal the claimant said that he had decided to claim universal credit on the spur of the moment on the advice of a person he had met on the street, which decision was attributable either to the influence of alcohol at the time or to the effects of withdrawal from alcohol, although he accepted that he had had capacity to make the decision. Dismissing the appeal, the tribunal found that the universal credit claim had been validly made with the effect, pursuant to regulation 8 of the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014F2, that the claimant’s award of housing benefit came to an end. On the claimant’s further appeal he argued that the universal credit claim had been validly withdrawn so as to restore his entitlement to housing benefit. Issues arose as to the effect, in that context, of regulation 31(1) of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013F3, pursuant to which a universal credit claim could be withdrawn “at any time before a determination has been made on it”, and section 2 of the Social Security Act 1998F4 which permitted a determination by the Secretary of State to be computerised.
On the appeal—
Held, dismissing the appeal, (1) that regulation 8 of the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014 had the effect that, when a claimant had made a claim for universal credit and met the first four basic conditions as set out in section 4(1)(a) to (d) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, any award of housing benefit came to an end two weeks later; that the case was thereby transferred from housing benefit to universal credit, as part of the managed transition from a benefit that was being run down (housing benefit) to the one that was taking over (universal credit); that that was what had happened in the present case notwithstanding that, in the event, the claimant had never qualified for an award of universal credit; and that the claimant’s acceptance that he had had capacity to make the decision to apply for universal credit disposed of any argument that the claim was not valid (post, paras 17–20).
(2) That by virtue of regulation 31(1) of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013, a claim could no longer be withdrawn once a determination was made on it; that as the universal credit online claim system checked that the basic conditions in section 4(1)(a) to (d) of the 2012 Act were met, and would only allow the claim to be submitted if they were, at that moment the Secretary of State was satisfied for the purposes of regulation 8(1)(b) of the 2014 Regulations that the claimant met those conditions; that on the basis that a “determination” was not to be equated with a final decision on the claim, but was a matter along the way leading to a decision, the finding that the basic conditions were satisfied was a relevant determination for the purposes of both regulation 31(1) of the 2013 Regulations and section 2 of the Social Security Act 1998; that it did not matter that the process was computerised since the Secretary of State was entitled by virtue of section 2 of the 1998 Act to rely on a computer program to identify cases in which the transitional condition was satisfied; and that, on that approach, the claimant’s universal credit claim could not be withdrawn because, by the time he attempted to withdraw the claim, a determination had been made on it (post, paras 22–27).
Per curiam. If the above analysis is wrong, withdrawal of the universal credit claim would nonetheless have no effect in terms of regulation 8 of the 2014 Regulations. The effect of a notice of withdrawal is not retrospective and it does not rewrite history as if the claim never existed. Alternatively, if a withdrawal can be retrospective, it still makes no difference because regulation 8 is freestanding and operates without regard to regulation 31 of the 2013 Regulations. What matters for the purpose of regulation 8 is the existence of facts, namely, that a claim has been made that meets the basic conditions (a)–(d). Since the point of reference of regulation 8, as a transitional provision, is the moment when the claim is made and the Secretary of State is satisfied that the relevant basic conditions are met, it comes into play at that point and anything that happens thereafter is irrelevant because the transition to universal credit has already been triggered (post, paras 29–34).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
CDLA/1589/2005 (unreported) 20 July 2005,
CJSA/3979/1999 (unreported) 21 May 2001,
Carpenter v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; R(IB) 6/03
R(S) 1/83 12 May 1982,
R(S) 2/98 17 July 1997,
Revenue and Customs Comrs v AB
Revenue and Customs Comrs v LH
SK v Revenue and Customs Comrs
APPEAL from the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
By a decision dated 1 February 2019 the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) dismissed an appeal by the claimant, JL, from the decision of the local authority, Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council, dated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SK v Revenue and Customs Commissioners and another
...State for Work and Pensions; R(IB) 6/03 [2003] EWCA Civ 33, The Times, 20 January 2003, CAJL v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2022] UKUT 9 (AAC); [2022] PTSR 808, UTR (Johnson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] EWCA Civ 778; [2020] PTSR 1872, CARevenue and Customs ......
-
His Majesty's Revenue & Customs v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and SA (TC)
...v AB [2021] UKUT 209 (AAC) was correctly decided on this withdrawal point nor whether the decision in JL v Calderdale MBC and SSWP [2022] UKUT 9 (AAC) is correct in holding that once made a claim for universal credit cannot (effectively) be withdrawn so as to prevent regulation 8(1)(b) of t......
-
His Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and GS (TC)
...v AB [2021] UKUT 209 (AAC) was correctly decided on this withdrawal point nor whether the decision in JL v Calderdale MBC and SSWP [2022] UKUT 9 (AAC) is correct in holding that once made a claim for universal credit cannot (effectively) be withdrawn so as to prevent regulation 8(1)(b) of t......
-
SK v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC)
...the regulation, which is before me: JL v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] UKUT 9 (AAC). B. What The claimant was in receipt of tax credits from 2017. From 10 November 2018, she received her award as a single claimant. On 17 March 20......