disregarding the Parents’ Learning Allowance (see paragraph 23 above) under regulation 59(4) of the Regulations
disregarding the Parents’ Learning Allowance (see paragraph 23 above) under regulation 59(4) of the Regulations;
taking into account the maintenance loan of £12,114 to which the claimant would have been entitled (see paragraph 24 above) and then:
disregarding £693 as money intended to meet the cost of books and equipment under regulation 64(5);
dividing the reduced amount of £11,421 by 42 weeks in accordance with regulation 64(2) to give £271.93 per week; and then
making the further disregard of £10 required by the full-out words of regulation 64(2) to give £261.93 per week;
on the view of the law that Gravesham took, the £9,000 loan for tuition fees (see paragraph 21 above), which the claimant also declined, was technically required to be taken into account as income. However, it then fell to be disregarded in full under regulation 64A.
- 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
![[2023] UKUT 193 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)