Heading

[2023] UKUT 193 (AAC) | ||
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL | Appeal No. UA-2019-001395-HB | |
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER | ||
On appeal from the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) | ||
Between: | ||
IB | ||
Appellant | ||
-v- | ||
Gravesham Borough Council | ||
First Respondent | ||
-and- | ||
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions | ||
Second Respondent | ||
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Poynter | ||
Hearing date: | 21 July 2021 | |
Decision date: | 7 August 2023 | |
Representation | ||
Appellant: | In person | |
First Respondent | Courtney Harvey, Appeals Officer, Gravesham Borough Council | |
Second Respondent | John Paul Waite of counsel instructed by the Government Legal Department | |
DECISION
- 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)