![[2023] UKUT 193 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Disposal
It follows that regulation 64(3) of the Regulations does not treat the claimant as possessing the student loan to which he would have been entitled if he had applied for it.
My decision is therefore as set out on pages 1 and 2 above.
Authorised for issue Corrected under rule 42 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 on 21 August 2023 | Richard Poynter |
- Heading
- Section 1
- I set that decision aside and re-make it as follows
- REASONS
- The facts
- The total claimed overpayment was therefore £7,488.40
- Gravesham’s decisions
- The manuscript worksheet dated 23 January 2018 in the supporting papers states that the student finance figures were
- disregarding the Parents’ Learning Allowance (see paragraph 23 above) under regulation 59(4) of the Regulations
- Digression: Gravesham’s letter of 29 November 2017
- The relevant law
- Housing benefit legislation
- who have been assessed, or treated, as incapable of work for 196 days who have been assessed as, or treated as, having, limited capability for work for 196 days
- who are deaf and in respect of certain specified payments have been awarded from public funds
- The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act
- The Equality Act
- CH/4429/2006
- The Tribunal’s decision
- Permission to appeal and the Secretary of State
- Grounds of Appeal
- The responses
- Hearing
- Discussion
- The interpretation of regulation 64: CH/4429/2006
- deciding whether to accept those terms; and if so completing the form and returning it to the Student Finance Authority
- The interpretation of regulation 64: Gravesham’s submissions
- The interpretation of regulation 64: the Secretary of State’s submissions
- Administrative inconvenience and the floodgates
- Discrimination
- The Upper Tribunal’s decision
- Conclusions