![[2024] UKUT 340 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The background
The background
On 8 November 2021 PHC made a claim for UC for herself and her four children. It appears (at least from the UC journal entries) that she completed all the relevant parts of the online UC claim form. Somewhat confusingly, PHC also made the following entry in her UC journal: “There have been changes to my identity from [PHCC] to [PHCU]”. Having said that, the extra ‘C’ in ‘PHCC’ was the same as the ’C’ in ‘HCU’ and the ‘P’ in ‘PHCU’ was the same as the ‘P’ in ‘PHC’.
The following month PHC attended an identity appointment but, according to the DWP at least, failed to provide the required identification at that interview. On 5 January 2022 the following further exchange took place in her UC journal about the identity of her children. The DWP sent PHC a message in these terms:
Hello [PHC] If you wish to claim to Universal Credit for your children you need to upload one the following into your Universal Credit account by 05/02/2022 for each child along with proof that your children are in full time education: One of the following: • Full Birth Certificate • Medical Card • Adoption certificate • Passport • Child benefit award letter. I have sent you a to-do which you can see in your account called ‘upload documents’. Please follow the instructions to upload the following evidence. We will not be able to pay you for any of your children until this information is received. You need to do this by 5 February 2022.
PHC replied as follows:
I already explained to DWP at [the job centre] that I cannot present you with any proof of an image, payment of any income or document to prove my and my children’s change of names. I am currently home schooling my oldest daughter because she was unlawfully denied admission into school and my 3 other children are unlawfully placed in a Catholic school which is against my will and my race. As a result of your request made today, I have made a complaint today to HMCTS concerning evidence of deed poll registered with the court. I have uploaded this evidence as proof.
The DWP assert that no such deed poll evidence was uploaded. In any event it is not immediately obvious why difficulties over the children’s schooling should have prevented proof of their identity by some other means (e.g. birth certificates or HMRC child benefit decision letters).
On 25 February 2022 the DWP ‘closed’ her claim. According to the official entry in her UC journal, the reason for the closure was “The claimant failed to provide evidence”. PHC applied unsuccessfully for mandatory reconsideration and then lodged an appeal with the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) against the decision dated 25 February 2022.
The DWP’s written response to the appeal before the FTT characterised the decision under appeal in the following terms:
On 25/02/2022, the Decision Maker made a decision that [PHC’s] claim to Universal Credit was to be closed as she failed to provide evidence of identity for herself or her children.
The DWP’s response to the appeal also sought to justify the decision in question in the following way:
No evidence of identity has been provided for PHC or her children, as required to make a claim to UC as per regulation 45 of The Universal Credit, PIP, JSA and ESA (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013.
On 14 September 2022 the FTT confirmed the DWP’s decision dated 25 February 2022 and so refused PHC’s appeal. The FTT’s statement of reasons gave the following explanation (the text within square brackets is as it appears in the original):
The respondent is entitled to request evidence and the appellant is requested to provide it in connection with an application for Universal Credit [Regulations 38 and 45 of the Universal Credit … (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013.] The appellant failed to provide it so the respondent was entitled to terminate the claim. [Regulation 47 of the Universal Credit … (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013.]
Presumably in the first sentence we are meant to read “the appellant is required to provide” in place of “the appellant is requested to provide” such evidence. More seriously, and putting to one side for a moment the question as to whether they are indeed applicable, the statutory references in the square brackets appear to be somewhat garbled. Those in the first set of square brackets should be to regulation 38 of the UC etc (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013 and regulation 45 of the UC etc (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013. The second citation should be to regulation 47 of 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