[2024] UKUT 342 (AAC)

In brief,the Appellant appealed to the FTT against a superseding maintenance calculation decision (the 2022 annual review) made on 8 February 2022 that he was liable to pay child support maintenance to the 2nd Respondent from an effective date of 8 February 2022 in the sum of £216.31 per week. The Appellant’s appeal to the FTT concerned the amount of that maintenance calculation and specifically the accuracy of the HMRC figure used for the 2020/21 tax year, arguing the figure arose from a tax error arising from a number of company cars. As per the appellant’s request, written reasons were issued to him on 17/10/2023.The appellant applied for permission to appeal the FTT decision of 16/6/2023, permission to appeal was refused by the DTJ on 08/01/2024 (although there is a typographical error regarding the date of the written reasons on the face of the document).This decision was issued to the parties on 16/01/2024. The appellant then applied to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal, this was granted by me on 14/06/2024.

The SSWP supports the appeal. Mr O has requested reasons for the decision and an oral hearing so he can (i) “be told why HMRC is wrong” and (ii) question other calculations made by CMS to date to “check if payments have always been correct”. The SSWP does not support an oral hearing of this matter on the basis firstly, she has conceded the FTT was in error of law and, secondly, the Upper Tribunal is not the correct forum to question other calculations. I agree. I also consider I can fairly deal with this appeal on the basis of the available evidence in accordance with the overriding objective. Representations have not been received from the second respondent.