[2024] UKUT 259 (AAC)

LM says that the FtT should not have proceeded with the hearing because the CMS had failed to comply with previous directions requiring it to provide an explanation for advice on its website which appeared to contradict the decision under appeal and to explain the applicability of Schedule 4B paragraph 2(3)(e) of the Child Support Act 1991. She says that at the hearing the Presenting Officer stated that the variation had been a mistake, that regulations 65 and 67 contradicted each other, and that he was unsure of the case because he had only received the documents 2 hours before the hearing.

None of these matters amount to an error of law:The FtT acknowledged that the CMS had not provided explanations in accordance with the previous directions but decided to proceed in the light of the delay that had already occurred and because the Presenting Officer was present to assist. The FtT gave the Presenting Officer time to read the bundle and all parties had confirmed they were happy to proceed. The CMS had provided a supplementary submission explaining the difference in approach under regulation 65 and 67. The FtT’s task was to apply the regulations not to review the correctness of its guidance. It would take into account the submissions of the Presenting Officer at the hearing but it was not required to follow his view as to the correctness of the decision.