Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2023] UKUT 193 (AAC)

Fecha: 21-Jul-2021

The interpretation of regulation 64: Gravesham’s submissions

The interpretation of regulation 64: Gravesham’s submissions

110.

At the hearing, Ms Harvey relied upon the written submissions that Gravesham had made (see paragraph 78 above) and on the submissions of Mr Waite, without wishing to add anything to them.

111.

As Gravesham’s own submissions relied upon the decision in CH/4429/2006, I have already given my reasons for rejecting them. I therefore turn to the Secretary of State’s submissions, with which Gravesham agreed.

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