[2025] UKUT 330 (AAC)

I conclude that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involves an error of law. I allow the appeal to the Upper Tribunal and set aside the decision under section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The case must be remitted for hearing by a new tribunal subject to the directions set out above (section 12(2)(b)(i)). My decision is also as set out above.

The DWP’s initial response to the Appellant’s mandatory reconsideration request included the following assertion:

As noted above, the DWP’s final response (by Angela B) to the Appellant’s repeated attempts to obtain a MRN contained the following passage:

Such statements by DWP officials are, to put it mildly, concerning. They display a worrying ignorance of the principles underpinning the system of adjudication for social security benefits. They also indicate a woeful lack of understanding of the role of the rule of law more generally. Claimants’ entitlements to social security benefits are ultimately determined by legislation and not (directly at least) by Government or departmental policy. As the Appellant noted in his response to the DWP, “The calculation you outline is claimed to be Government policy or should you mean the legislation.”

The Appellant may be right about the proper construction and application of paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 to the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/376) to the circumstances of his case. He may be wrong about it. What is indisputable is that he has effectively been denied the right of access to an independent tribunal to determine that question for the best part of the past 18 months. The Appellant in this case has shown remarkable persistence and resilience to maintain his challenge. It is acutely concerning that many other claimants would have given up in the face of the Department’s stalling and thereby been at risk of potential injustice.