[2023] UKUT 212 (AAC)

Contention 1. Any requirement there may be for a claimant who notifies HMRC of an award of DLA in order to have the level of Tax Credits increased is not a barrier to the claimant succeeding in the circumstances of this case. That is because:

1A. The F-tT which decided the appeal on 16 February 2018 erred through failing to take account of the findings of and the record of evidence given to the F-tT which had allowed the appeal on 9 October 2017.

1B. The meaning of “change of circumstances” as used in section 6 of the 2002 Act is limited to a change of circumstances since the making of a decision under section 14 of the Act in relation to the tax year in question. That being so, any failure on the part of the claimant to notify during the 2010-2011 tax year is only capable of precluding the addition of the child disability component in that particular tax year.

Contention 2. The failure of the information sharing system between the DWP and HMRC amounts to “official error” as the term is used in regulation 2 of the OE Regulations.

Contention 3. Each relevant decision taken under section 18 of the 2002 Act with respect to each relevant tax year, official errors having occurred, were “incorrect by reason” of such official error such that they may be revised. That is because either (or both):

3A. HMRC had not given information to the claimant such as to place her under a duty to correct the notifications issued to her under section 17 of the 2002 Act so any failure to correct information contained in those notifications could not have been causative with respect to the underpayment of child tax credits which she received.

3B. Even if the claimant had been under a duty to correct the information contained in the section 17 Notices, any such failure to notify does not lead to a conclusion that the subsequent decisions taken under section 18 of the 2002 Act were not incorrect by reason of official error.