Introduction
Introduction
This is a case about establishing a claimant’s identity (and that of her children) for the purposes of making a claim for Universal Credit (UC).
This appeal is a further example of the occasional gap (some might say the occasional chasm) between what the law says on the one hand about the adjudication of claims for benefit and how the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) actually operates its decision-making arrangements on the other.
The claimant in this appeal was (or so it appears) previously known by a name which gave her the initials HCU. The claimant is now known by a different name which gives her the initials PHC. The initial ‘H’ stands for the same forename in both instances, while the initial ‘C’ stands for different names. I use her initials (whether previously HCU or more latterly PHC) to preserve the claimant’s privacy.
In this decision (unless quoting directly from documents in the appeal bundle) I refer to the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/380) by way of shorthand as the ‘UC etc (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013’. Likewise the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/381) are referred to as the ‘UC etc (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013’.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal made on 14 September 2022 under number SC154/22/01415 was made in error of law. Under section 12(2)(a
- Introduction
- The Appellant’s request for an oral hearing of her Upper Tribunal appeal
- The background
- A summary of the proceedings in the Upper Tribunal
- Making sense of ‘case closure’ in cases where identity is in issue
- Interpretation One: suspension and termination
- Interpretation Two: disallowance as penalty for failing to comply with a request for evidence
- Interpretation Three: claim not in the required manner (version 1)
- Interpretation Four: claim not in the required manner (version 2)
- Interpretation Five: disallowance under SSAA 1992 sections 1(1A) and 1(1B)
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision in the present appeal
- The approach that the new First-tier Tribunal should take
- The evidence relating to the National Insurance number (NiNo)
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 340 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)