JM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (CA)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Rowland |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] UKUT 329 (AAC),[2018] UKUT 329 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | European Union law,European Union law - Council regulations 1408/71/EEC,(EC) 883/2004,Rowland,M |
| Date | 27 September 2018 |
| Published date | 03 November 2018 |
JM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (CA) [2018] UKUT 329 (AAC)
CG/1851/2015
1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Case No. CG/1851/2015
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before Upper Tribunal Judge Rowland
Decision: The claimant’s appeal is dismissed.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. This is an appeal, brought by the claimant with my permission, against a
decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 15 September 2014, whereby it dismissed the
claimant’s appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State dated 7 October 2013
to the effect that she was not entitled to carer’s allowance from 2 August 2013.
2. The facts are straightforward and not in dispute. The claimant is a Polish
national who arrived in the United Kingdom from Poland on 19 June 2011 at the age
of 58 (not 61 as the First-tier Tribunal found). She was a widow in receipt of a Polish
pension (renta rodzinna) and she moved to the United Kingdom to live with her
daughter, who was working and training to be an accountant, and her granddaughter,
who was born in the United Kingdom in 2003. She herself did some occasional work
as a cleaner on a self-employed basis. She paid Class 2 National Insurance
contributions.
3. Sadly, her granddaughter became seriously disabled due to a severe immune
condition. She was awarded the highest rate of the care component and the higher
rate of disability living allowance from 1 August 2013. The claimant took much of the
burden of caring for her. On 27 August 2013, the Secretary of State received a claim
from the claimant in which she sought carer’s allowance from 2 August 2013 and
said that she had stopped work on 1 August 2013 and had ceased trading.
4. On 7 October 2013, the claim was rejected on the ground that, under
European Union law, Poland was the competent Member State in respect of the
claimant for social security purposes. The only reason given in the Secretary of
State’s decision was that she was “getting a pension form Poland”. The claimant
appealed and the Secretary of State’s submission to the First-tier Tribunal made it
plain that his decision was predicated on a finding that the claimant was not
economically active. The submission referred broadly to Articles 23, 24 and 29 of
Regulation (EC) 883/2004 without setting them out or explaining exactly how they
worked. Perhaps partly in consequence of the inadequacy of the submission, the
First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal without citing any law at all. On the question
of the claimant’s work, it said –
“20. [The claimant] registered for self-employment and paid self-employed Class II
National Insurance Contributions (page 47).
21. Nevertheless although she was self-employed as a housekeeper/cleaner she
did not actively work. She worked a couple of hours on a Saturday but this was not
consistent as it was only on an ad hoc basis.
22. She has never been employed in the UK.”
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
JS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (CA)
...a mixture of EU and domestic law. As Upper Tribunal Judge Rowland pointed out in JM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2018] UKUT 329 (AAC): 11. … the meaning of ‘any activity or equivalent situation treated as such for the purposes of the social security legislation of the Member ......