Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2023] UKUT 274 (AAC)

Fecha: 09-Nov-2023

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal

18.

The First-tier Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) allowed the claimant’s appeal, holding that he was entitled to the housing costs element of UC from the start of his claim on 17 August 2021 and throughout the period he was remanded in custody. In summary, the Tribunal found that the Secretary of State had erred in law by relying on regulation 19(1)(b) because regulation 19(2) operated to prevent regulation 19(1)(b) from applying in this case.

19.

The essence of the Tribunal’s reasoning is captured in the following passage:

The Appellant applied for Universal Credit on 17/08/21. The evidence does not suggest there was any difficulty in terms of his entitlement before he was remanded in custody on 11/09/2021. Therefore, the Tribunal finds the Appellant had entitlement to Universal Credit from the date of his claim on 17/08/2021 onwards, even if he had not actually been paid any benefit money at that stage. His entitlement continued and was in place immediately before he became a prisoner when he was remanded in custody on 11/09/2021. His entitlement included a housing costs element, and he did not receive a term of imprisonment which either exceeded or was expected to exceed 6 months. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that all the elements of Regulation 19(2) are satisfied and so Regulation 19(1)(b) does not apply in this case.

20.

The Tribunal specifically rejected an argument advanced by the Secretary of State that the fact of the claimant’s being remanded in custody amounted to a supersession by way of a change of circumstances which took effect from the start of the assessment period. This submission was made on the basis of paragraph 20 of Schedule 1 to the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/381). I simply observe that the Secretary of State has since expressly abandoned that submission in the context of this further appeal.

21.

The Tribunal therefore concluded as follows:

The Tribunal finds the Appellant had entitlement from the start of his claim and as all the criteria in Regulation 19(2) are satisfied, the effect of Regulation 19(2) is that the bar to entitlement as a result of being a prisoner in Regulation 19(1)(b) had no effect, so the situation regarding the Appellant’s entitlement to Universal Credit was unaffected save that, under Regulation 19(3), the Appellant’s entitlement to Universal Credit was limited to the housing costs element throughout the time he was remanded in custody.

22.

I subsequently gave the Secretary of State permission to appeal.