Hearing
Hearing
I held an online hearing of the appeal on 21 July 2021. I would like to take the opportunity to apologise once again to the parties that my long-term ill-health has led to such an unacceptable delay between the hearing and the promulgation of this decision. I should stress, however, that the hearing was recorded and therefore my memory of the submissions that were made has not dimmed.
At the hearing, the claimant appeared in person, Gravesham were represented by their appeals officer, Courtney Harvey, and the Secretary of State was represented by John Paul Waite of counsel instructed by the Government Legal Department.
I am grateful to all the parties for their helpful submissions, both written and oral. However, I must single out the claimant for special mention. Despite the importance of the matter to him, and the fact that he has no legal training, he presented his case persuasively and thoroughly, but without taking obviously bad points, and with a moderation and discretion that many junior barristers of his age fail to bring to the affairs of their clients. I am confident that he will succeed in his chosen field of life, but he is a loss to the legal profession.
- 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)