![[2025] UKUT 330 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved an error of law. Under section 12(2)(a), (b)(i) and (3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforce
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved an error of law. Under section 12(2)(a), (b)(i) and (3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, I set that decision aside and remit the case to be reconsidered by a fresh tribunal in accordance with this decision and the following directions.
DIRECTIONS
The case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for consideration of the substantive appeal at an oral hearing.
The new First-tier Tribunal should not involve the tribunal judge previously involved in considering this appeal on 7 October 2024.
The Respondent is to prepare a response to (and hearing bundle for) the Appellant’s appeal against the supersession decision on his UC housing costs dated 23 April 2024, to be sent to the First-tier Tribunal within one month of the date of issue of this decision.
If the Appellant has any further written evidence to put before the tribunal, this should be sent to the First-tier Tribunal within one month of the date of issue of this decision.
These Directions may be supplemented by later directions by a Tribunal Legal Officer, Tribunal Registrar or First-tier Tribunal Judge.
REASONS FOR DECISION
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved an error of law. Under section 12(2)(a), (b)(i) and (3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforce
- Introduction
- The Upper Tribunal’s decision in summary and what happens next
- The chronology
- The background in more detail
- The Secretary of State’s submission on the appeal
- The actual issue in the case
- What happens next: the new First-tier Tribunal
- Conclusions