CA-2023-002256 - [2025] EWCA Civ 985

These proceedings arise out of a decision of the Respondent Local Authority (“Lambeth”) on 11 October 2018 to reduce the Appellant’s entitlement to receive Housing Benefit [“HB”] retrospectively on the grounds that, contrary to a declaration she had made in 2014, her son had been living with her as a non-dependant adult during the period from September 2014 to October 2018. The decision asserted that, as a result, there had been a substantial overpayment of HB which Lambeth was entitled to recover.

I set out the facts and procedural history in more detail below. The facts are within a fairly narrow compass; but the proceedings that have followed have been protracted. The net result is that we have heard a rolled-up application for permission to bring a second appeal. The proposed second appeal is from an order of the Upper Tribunal (Deputy UTJ Hocking) made on 14 June 2023 dismissing the Appellant’s appeal against a decision of the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal on 28 January 2021 by which the FtT dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against Lambeth’s decision.

I bear in mind at all times the test to be applied by this Court on an application for permission to bring a second appeal from the Upper Tribunal. Where, as here, the Upper Tribunal has refused permission to appeal, Article 2 of The Appeals from the Upper Tribunal to the Court of Appeal Order 2008 provides that:

“Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in England or Wales … shall not be granted unless … the relevant appellate court considers that:

(a)

the proposed appeal would raise some important point of principle or practice, or

(b)

there is some other compelling reason for the relevant appellate court to hear the appeal.”

For the reasons set out below, I would grant permission to appeal and allow the appeal. If my Lords agree, I would remit the case to the FtT for a rehearing.