OB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Rowland |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] UKUT 255 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Residence,presence conditions,presence conditions - right to reside,Rowland,M |
| Date | 13 June 2017 |
| Published date | 05 July 2017 |
OB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA) [2017] UKUT 0255 (AAC)
CE/1188/2016 1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Case No. CE/1188/2016
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before Upper Tribunal Judge Rowland
Decision: The decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 23 December 2015 is set
aside and the case is remitted to a different judge of the First-tier Tribunal to be re-
decided.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. This is an appeal, brought by the claimant with my permission, against a
decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 23 December 2015, dismissing her appeal
against a decision of the Secretary of State dated 2 July 2015 to the effect that she
was not entitled to employment and support allowance on her claim received on 9
June 2015 because she did not have a right of residence in the United Kingdom, the
Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland.
2. Some of the facts of the case are not altogether clear, but the principal facts
currently seem to me to be as follows. The claimant was a Romanian national. She
first came to the United Kingdom on 15 September 2008, when she was aged 23,
with a view to taking up a place on a work-based vocational course studying for an
NVQ level 2 in, it seems, health and social care or a related subject. She obtained a
yellow registration certificate from the Home Office, under which she was allowed to
work full time while studying (because her course was vocational). She worked in a
care home from September 2008 until December 2009 and then obtained
employment in a hospital and also with an agency. On 29 October 2010, having
lawfully worked in the United Kingdom for over 12 months, she obtained a blue
registration certificate under which she had free access to the labour market. She
was a university student from September 2011 until June 2012 at a local university.
She remained on the books as an employee of the agency until April 2012 and of the
hospital until 31 August 2014. It is not clear to what extent she worked while
studying. It is possible that she did some work during both terms and vacations
throughout the year, but it is also possible that she worked only after the end of the
summer term.
3. Then, in September 2012, she embarked on a three-year degree course at
another university, studying for a BSc in biomedical studies. (It is possible that she
only needed to do two years in view of the year she had already done but I do not
know what she had been studying in the previous year and that may not be so.) This
involved her moving to a different area. Again, it is not clear to what extent, if at all,
the claimant worked during her first year. In any event, it appears that she failed her
examinations in the summer of 2013 and therefore, although she was registered as a
student at the university during the following year, she was not attending lectures
and was merely required to resit her examinations in the summer of 2014. She
obtained a job working for a care provider from August 2013 until November 2013.
She was then in receipt of contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance from 25
November 2013 to 9 January 2014 and employment and support allowance from 10
January 2014 to 23 May 2014, the latter recorded by the Secretary of State as
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
ODS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC)
...in the 2012-2013 tax year and the relevance thereto, or otherwise, of the decision of the Upper Tribunal in OB v SSWP (ESA) [2017] UKUT 0255 (AAC); and even less so need I address whether the continuity of residence was affected by any periods of absence from UK by appellant and/or her daug......
-
Cardiff City Council v HM (HB)
...(AAC) 4. Though I cannot see why it needed it if what it had earlier said was correct, the FtT also sought to rely on OB v SSWP (ESA) [2017] UKUT 0255 (AAC) in which Judge Rowland had held (at “I am satisfied that Article 16 and regulation 15 should be interpreted as requiring continuity of......