R (Bui) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; R (Onakoya) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: [2022] UKUT 189 (AAC) : [2023] AACR 9
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judges Farbey, Wikeley and Church on 18 July 2022.
Read the full decision in
Reported as [2023] AACR 9
Judicial Summary
Social Security Administration Act 1992; National insurance numbers; Advance payments; Entitlement; Irrationality; Social security benefits
The appellants were individuals who had been granted limited leave to remain in the UK with recourse to public funds. They had applied for universal credit (UC) but did not have National Insurance numbers (NINo). They satisfied the conditions for UC but to be entitled to benefit they had to make a claim. The Social Security Administration Act 1992 Part I section 1(1B)(a) required the claim to be accompanied by the person’s NINo or section 1(1B)(b) required the person to make an application for a NINo to be allocated to them, accompanied by information or evidence enabling such a number to be so allocated.
There had been delays in allocating each appellant with a NINo and it had taken some months for them to receive UC, which had been backdated to the date of their claim. The Secretary of State took the view that no advance payments of UC could be made until the end of the verification process for the claimant’s entitlement to a NINo.
The appellants challenged the Secretary of State’s policy not to make any payment of UC or any payment on account until a NINo had been allocated. They each brought a claim for judicial review. The two cases were heard together in the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) by a three-judge panel. The Upper Tribunal dismissed their applications on the basis that the Secretary of State’s position was justified by public policy to impose a verification process before awarding or paying public funds.
The claimants appealed with permission to the Court of Appeal.
Held, allowing the appeal in part that:
-
it was not irrational for the Secretary of State to have a two-stage process under which the claimant’s eligibility for UC was checked first, and then the entitlement to and allocation of an NI number was separately considered if necessary (paragraphs 65-70).
-
evidence that enables a NINo to be allocated to a claimant for benefit is evidence that establishes that the claimant does in fact have a right to benefits. False documents do not do this.
-
DWP’s blanket practice of refusing to pay advance payments simply on the basis that a claimant does not have a NINo is flawed. The legislation does not prevent the DWP from making advance payments to someone who does not have a NINo.