JB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Poole |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] UKUT 360 (AAC),[2018] UKUT 360 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Universal Credit,Universal Credit - Sanctions,Poole,AI |
| Date | 08 October 2018 |
| Published date | 09 November 2018 |
JB v SSWP
[2018] UKUT 360 (AAC)
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. CSUC/494/2017
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge A I Poole QC
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-
tier Tribunal at Glasgow dated 18 July 2017 was made in error of law. Under section
12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 I set that decision
aside and remit the case to be reconsidered by a fresh tribunal in accordance with the
directions at the end of this decision.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. This is a case about universal credit (“UC”) and the application of sanctions to
claimants. The short point arising is that tribunals deciding certain sanctions cases
should consider not just the issue of good reason for failing to comply with a
requirement, but also whether that requirement was validly imposed in the first place.
Requirements are only validly imposed if the claimant has been notified of the
substance of the particular requirement and the consequences of the failure to comply
with it.
2. The appellant (the “claimant”) failed to attend an appointment with his adviser on
12 January 2017. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (“SSWP”) decided on
1 February 2017 to apply a sanction to him. The sanction had the effect that the
claimant’s payments of UC were reduced. On 18 July 2017 the First-tier Tribunal (the
“tribunal”) upheld the decision of the SSWP. The following relevant facts were found
by the tribunal, at paragraphs 14 and 16 of its statement of reasons for decision.
The claimant claimed UC from 11 September 2015.
The claimant was placed in the All Work-Related Requirement Conditionality
Group.
The claimant signed and agreed the appropriate Claimant Commitment on 27
October 2016.
The Claimant Commitment included a requirement to attend and take part in
appointments with the advisor when required.
The Claimant Commitment includes information as to what might happen if without
a good reason there is a failure to comply.
The claimant was required to attend an appointment with his advisor at the
Universal Credit Office at Bridgeton on 12 January 2017 at 11am.
The claimant did not attend the appointment.
The claimant did not attend the appointment as he thought it was on 13 January
2017.
The claimant had been notified of the appointment.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
KG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC)
...in the interview on 22 May 2018? In this context the decision in JB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC) [2018] UKUT 360 (AAC) may be instructive. Second, did the 2 KG -v- SSWP (UC) [2020] UKUT 307 (AAC) Case no: CUC/563/2020 Tribunal deal adequately with the issue of good cause,......