NSP v Stoke-on-Trent City Council & GP (HB): [2022] UKUT 86 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Poynter on 17 March 2022.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
The “material fact” referred to in regulation 101(2)(b) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 is a fact that actually did make a difference to the outcome decision and not one that might have done so. In other words, it is a material fact that either formed, or could have formed, a ground for the revising or superseding decision that led to the overpayment.
As is the case for benefits administered by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and in the child support scheme, a “material” fact for the purposes of regulation 4 (Revision of decisions) and regulation 7 (Decisions superseding earlier decisions) of the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001 is one that actually does make a difference to the outcome decision and not one that might have done so: CIS/3655/2007 and CA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and TB (CSM) [2020] UKUT 205 (AAC) followed.