![[2023] UKUT 193 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The total claimed overpayment was therefore £7,488.40
The total claimed overpayment was therefore £7,488.40.
On 22 February 2018, those decisions were revised with the effect that the claimant was no longer disentitled to housing benefit from Monday 22 August 2016 to 3 September, but the weekly rate at which he was entitled was less than the rate that he had actually been paid. As a result, the total claimed overpayment was reduced by £2,883.44 (representing the claimant’s reduced entitlement between those dates) to £4,604.96.
On 12 March 2018, the claimant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal ("the Tribunal") against the decision dated 23 January 2018 as revised.
- 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