DJ v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and TJ (CSM)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Gray |
| Judgment Date | 14 February 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] UKUT 83 (AAC) |
| Subject Matter | Child support,Child support - receipt of benefit |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Published date | 08 March 2017 |
| Date | 14 February 2017 |
DJ v (1) SSWP, (2) TJ (CSM)
[2017] UKUT 0083 (AAC)
CCS/2492/2016
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. CCS/2492/2016
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Gray
This appeal by the claimant succeeds. Having granted permission to appeal on 30
August 2016, in accordance with the provisions of section 12(2)(b)(i) of the Tribunals,
Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 I set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting
at Hull and made on 7 April 2016 under reference SC 147/15/01982 and remit the case
to the First Tier Tribunal for re-hearing with the following directions:
(i) The rehearing may, but need not, be listed in front of a different judge.
(ii) The District Tribunal Judge is to give consideration to joining HMRC for the reasons
which I give at the conclusion of this judgement.
(iii) The fresh evidence supplied by the father within these proceedings, as well as the
submissions are to be before the tribunal rehearing the case.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. In this child support case the appellant is the father of Katherine, born on 10 June
1996, who at all material times has lived with her mother. He is, in the terms of the
applicable legislation, a non-resident parent who is liable to be assessed for child
support maintenance in respect of a qualifying child. Katherine’s mother is the
second respondent.
2. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is the first respondent, but I will refer
to the body that has from time to time been administering child support
maintenance as the agency.
3. Child support maintenance in this case is based on the statutory scheme in force
from 3/3/2003.
The decision under appeal and the issue for the FTT
4. The issue for the first-tier Tribunal was the date upon which the father’s liability to
pay child support for Katherine ended. A decision was made by the agency on 23
September 2015 which closed the case from 3 September 2015. That date was
challenged by the father.
5. The basis of the agency decision was that child benefit remained in payment for
Katherine until 7 September 2015, which resulted in a cancellation from the start of
the payment week in which that day fell. The father argued that she had been
working full-time since September 2014 and that if child benefit was being paid it
was an error.
To continue reading
Request your trial