CU v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: [2024] UKUT 32 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Jones on 31 January 2024.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
Whether the Appellant could reasonably have been expected to make his claim to universal credit at an earlier time due to his disability. Consideration of Regulation 26(2) of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013.
The first ground of appeal succeeds - even though the Appellant wrongly submits that the ‘good cause’ test is the correct test in law - because the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) failed to consider the Appellant’s circumstances fully when applying the test under Regulation 26(2)(b). That is, it failed to properly to consider what a hypothetical person with the Appellant’s disability could reasonably have been expected to do, given his knowledge of the benefit system and the possibilities for acquiring information about benefit entitlements and procedures available to him.
The second ground of appeal succeeds - there does not appear to be anything in the bundle of evidence before the FTT to suggest that the claim the Appellant actually submitted was made by telephone, and the FTT made no other findings to support the conclusion that a telephone claim would have been permitted by the Secretary of State under regulation 8(2). Accordingly, the FTT made insufficient findings to justify the view that a claim by telephone could reasonably have been expected during the period for which an extension of time was sought.