Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 329 (AAC)

Fecha: 24-Ene-2024

The decision-making process the First-tier Tribunal used for JG’s appeal

(a)

The decision-making process the First-tier Tribunal used for JG’s appeal

On 19 July 2023, the Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”), acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, decided JG had not shown good reason for failing to comply with a work-related requirement as part of his universal credit (“UC”) claim. DWP decided JG had not provided details of his job search for the period from 05 July 2023 to 11 July 2023. DWP therefore applied a medium-level sanction to JG’s UC award, for a 28-day period from 05 July 2023 onwards, at a daily rate of £12.10.

On 06 October 2023, JG appealed to a First-tier Tribunal. He asked for his appeal to be determined on the papers. On 24 January 2024, a First-tier Tribunal (“the tribunal”) determined JG’s appeal by considering the papers in the appeal bundle and his written representations. The tribunal confirmed DWP’s decision dated 19 July 2023 and refused JG’s appeal.

JG wrote several times to HM Courts and Tribunals Service (“HMCTS”) about this decision. The appeal papers indicate HMCTS received the following contact from JG:

(a)

On 30 January 2024, requesting a Statement of Reason for the tribunal’s decision (Addition H, page 2 of appeal bundle);

(b)

On 31 January 2024, in response to receiving a reply from HMCTS, emphasising he was requesting a statement of reasons and for the decision to be set aside as well as applying to the Upper Tribunal (Addition I, page 1);

(c)

On 06 February 2024, requesting the decision be set aside on mental health ground and providing details of his request (Addition J, page 1);

(d)

On 06 February 2024, commenting the decision notice sent by the tribunal stated no party objected to the matter being decided without a hearing and JG would like that explained as he wanted a hearing. JG set out reasons why he disagreed with the decision dated 24 January 2024 (Addition K, pages 1-2); and

(e)

On 06 February 2024, stating he wanted the tribunal decision to be cancelled, giving reasons for his request. JG did not list the tribunal proceeding in his absence as one of the reasons for his request (Addition L, page 1).

On 20 February 2024, a salaried tribunal judge (“salaried judge”) applied Rule 37 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (SEC) Rules 2008 (“the FTT Rules 2008”) and decided to set aside the tribunal’s decision dated 24 January 2024.

10.

Rule 37 provides the following:

“Setting aside a decision which disposes of proceedings

37.

—

(1)

The Tribunal may set aside a decision which disposes of proceedings, or part of such a decision, and re-make the decision, or the relevant part of it, if—

(a)

the Tribunal considers that it is in the interests of justice to do so; and

(b)

one or more of the conditions in paragraph (2) are satisfied.