BL v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SPC)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Farbey |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] UKUT 4 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Date | 09 January 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Earnings,other income,Income support,state pension credits,other income - other income,payments,state pension credits - other: state pension credit,Farbey,J |
| Published date | 17 January 2018 |
BL v SSWP (SPC) [2018] UKUT 4 (AAC)
CPC/384/2017& CPC/386/2017 1
Case Nos: CPC/384/2017
CPC/386/2017
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FARBEY QC
DECISION
1. The appeal in CPC/384/2017 is dismissed. The decision of the First-tier
Tribunal sitting at Enfield on 4 October 2016 under appeal reference
SC312/16/01453 did not involve the making of a material error of law.
Therefore, its decision is not set aside.
2. The appeal in CPC/386/2017 is allowed. The decision of the First-tier
Tribunal sitting at Enfield on 4 October 2016 under appeal reference
SC312/16/01452 involved the making of an error on a point of law and is set
aside. The Upper Tribunal is not able to re-make the decision under appeal.
The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
for rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal in accordance with the
directions set out below.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Summary of what the appeal is about
1. In this appeal, the claimant challenges two decisions of the Secretary of State in
relation to state pension credit (SPC). The first decision (taken on mandatory
reconsideration on 1 July 2016) was that the claimant was not entitled to SPC
from 9 October 2003. I shall call this the entitlement decision. The second
decision (taken at the same time) was that he had been overpaid SPC from 9
October 2003 to 1 May 2016 in the sum of £33,227.13 of which £32,440.83 was
recoverable. I shall call this the overpayment decision. Appeals against the
entitlement decision (SC312/16/01453) and the overpayment decision
(SC312/16/01452) were heard together by the First-tier Tribunal and dismissed.
The claimant now appeals to the Upper Tribunal in relation to both decisions with
the permission of Upper Tribunal Judge Markus QC.
2. The central issue raised by the claimant in both appeals is whether payments to his
late wife from a personal pension set up by him should have been treated as part
of his income for the purposes of assessing his entitlement to SPC. The Secretary
of State resists the claimant’s legal submissions. She nevertheless concedes the
overpayment appeal on different, unrelated grounds to which I shall return below.
To continue reading
Request your trial