![[2024] UKUT 340 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The First-tier Tribunal’s decision in the present appeal
The First-tier Tribunal’s decision in the present appeal
The FTT approached the appeal applying Interpretation Two from the five-fold typology above. In effect, it treated the claimant’s failure to comply with the requirement under regulation 37 of the UC etc (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013 to provide identity evidence as sufficient reason in and of itself to disallow the claim. For the reasons above, that approach involved an error of law. The FTT should have tackled the appeal through the lens of section 1(1A) and (1B) of the SSAA 1992. I therefore allow PHC’s appeal, set aside the FTT’s decision dated 14 September 2022 and remit the appeal to be reheard by a fresh tribunal.
- 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