[2024] UKUT 340 (AAC)

This appears to have been the approach taken by the DWP appeals submission writer at first instance. They sought to make sense of what had happened by stating in the response to the appeal that the Appellant’s claim had been closed “as per regulation 45” of the UC etc (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013. However, for the following reasons this reading cannot be right.

So far as is material, regulation 45 of the UC etc (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013 provides as follows:

There are two clear reasons why regulation 45 cannot apply in the present case.

The first reason is that, according to paragraph (1), regulation 49 applies only “where the Secretary of State requires information or evidence … in order to determine whether a decision awarding a benefit should be revised under section 9 of the 1998 Act or superseded under section 10 of that Act”. Yet there was no pre-existing decision in this case awarding benefit that was capable of revision or supersession.

The second reason is that the information or evidence has to be required from one of the categories of claimant listed in paragraph (2). However, PHC did not fall into any of the categories (a) to (e). The most promising might appear to be category (c) – “a person from whom the Secretary of State requires information or evidence under regulation 38(2) (evidence and information in connection with an award) of the Claims and Payments Regulations 2013” – but this provision is again predicated on there being an existing award of benefit that is susceptible to revision or supersession (see further below).

Regulation 47 of the UC etc (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013 certainly provides for (as the heading puts it) “Termination for failure to furnish information or evidence” but this only comes into play where payment of benefit has been suspended under (amongst other provisions) regulation 45. If regulation 45 does not bite for the purposes of a suspension, then neither can regulation 47 bite by way of termination (see RA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC) [2024] UKUT 207 (AAC) at paragraph 25). Furthermore, and in any event, a decision to terminate under regulation 47 falls to be made by way of a supersession (see R(H) 4/08 at paragraphs 28-34), which again presupposes an existing decision.

It follows that regulations 45 and 47 of the UC etc (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013 on suspension and termination cannot logically be invoked as a means of disallowing a new claim for benefit.