Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2023] UKUT 151 (AAC)

Fecha: 04-Jul-2023

The benefits adjudication and appeals machinery

The benefits adjudication and appeals machinery

This case also illustrates two important features of the benefits adjudication and appeals machinery.

The first is that the primary focus of the adjudication and appeals machinery in the benefits system is on individual decisions on entitlement, rather than on the people who are the subject of those decisions. As I explained in another decision (GJ v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2022] UKUT 334):

10.

The Appellant’s statement in his notice of appeal in 2020 that “the appeal has been going on since May 2017” needs to be unpacked a little. It is entirely understandable that he sees the question of his entitlement to PIP as being a single discrete issue starting with his original claim for benefit. However, the benefits appeals system takes a different approach, which focusses more on specific decisions than just on the claimant as an individual. Mr Commissioner Powell explained the decision-based system in the unreported Social Security Commissioner’s decision CA/1020/2007 (at paragraph 12) as follows:

“What is meant by this is that the system proceeds, or is based, on formal decisions being given. If a benefit is awarded it must be awarded by a formal and identifiable decision. If that decision is to be altered by, for example, increasing or decreasing the amount involved, it can only be done by another formal and identifiable decision. Likewise a decision is required if the period of the award is to be terminated, shortened or extended.”

11.

The present appeal shows the importance of identifying the precise nature of the decision under appeal.

The present case is yet another example of the importance of identifying the precise decision under appeal as that will then determine the potential scope of the appeal and so a claimant’s entitlement to benefit.

The second important feature is the principle of finality. This is embodied in section 17(1) of the Social Security Act 1998 (as amended), which provides as follows:

“(1)
Subject to the provisions of this Chapter and to any provision made by or under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, any decision made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter shall be final; and subject to the provisions of any regulation under section 11 above, any decision made in accordance with those regulations shall be final.

The main effect of this provision is to prevent there being two decisions relating to the same individual’s entitlement to the same benefit for the same period. As Upper Tribunal Judge Hemingway explained in GG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2019] UKUT 318 (AAC) (at paragraph 15):

The effect of section 17(1), as explained in CSDLA/237/03 (though the wording was slightly different at the date of the Commissioner’s decision) is that decisions on claims are final, subject to appeals, revisions, supersession or judicial review. As was also explained by the Social Security Commissioner, section 12(8)(b) has to be applied in conformity with section 17(1) and with the basic rule that there cannot be overlapping decisions in respect of the same benefit. As was pointed out, if that were not the case the situation “could be chaotic”. So, as the Commissioner went on to explain, a F-tT must decide the period over which it has jurisdiction to make an award. This will usually be open ended. But where a decision has already been made on a later period section 17(1) along with the common-sense principle that there cannot be two or more overlapping decisions concerning the same period, operates to limit the period over which a decision-making body has jurisdiction.

The present case is an example of how the principle of finality intersects with the decision-based system of adjudication. In the Appellant’s case, this requires careful consideration of the fate of his two separate FTT appeals about his entitlement to PIP.