[2025] UKUT 330 (AAC)

I respectfully submit the FTT have erred in law in failing to consider section 12(3A).

Section 12(3A) of the Social Security Act 1998 sets out -

The appellant had asked for a Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) on 02/05/2024 of the supersession decision that was made on 23/04/2024. This decision was made due to a relevant change of circumstance on the housing costs and led to an increase in award. On 22/05/2024 the Decision Maker (DM) updated the journal confirming to the claimant that an ‘MR was not necessary as it was a policy issue’ (FTT bundle SSCS1 form, page 2). This is also acknowledged by the FTT in paragraph 10 in the Statement of Reasons (SOR) which states ‘In his appeal, he wrote that he requested mandatory reconsideration in May, but was told by the Department that one was not necessary as this was a policy issue’.

In Paragraph 19 of the SOR the FTT state that ‘The Tribunal did not consider this to be a refusal to carry out a mandatory reconsideration. A decision to this effect was never issued to the appellant’. The FTT concluded that they did not consider the above DM’s journal entry on 22/05/2024 to be a refusal to revise and that no decision was issued to the appellant. However, there is a further journal entry not submitted in the bundles on 04/06/2024 by [Angela B]. In brief, she explains that the inaccurate housing costs calculation about which the claimant has complained is an unfortunate but inescapable result of the framing of the legislation and suggests that the remedy is a Discretionary Housing Payment.

The appellant undoubtedly applied for a revision of the supersession from 23/03/2024, but had the Secretary of State "considered" that application, as the MR requirement in regulation 7(2) of the Decisions and Appeals Regulations requires? The answer is surely ‘yes’. As R(IB) 2/04 points out at [8]: ‘neither the Act nor any regulation specifies any particular form in which decisions must be made.’ Whether a given act constitutes a refusal to revise is a matter of substance.

Paragraph 43 of R(CJ) and SG v SSWP [2017] UKUT 324 (AAC), [2018] AACR 5 states –

More precisely: has the Secretary of State looked at a request to change a decision and said 'no' to it? Framed in this way, it seems beyond doubt that the Secretary of State did refuse the application for revision to the appellant (perhaps many times over). If nothing else, Angela B’s message on 4 June 2024 is an unequivocal statement that no change to the benefit awarded can be made in response to the arguments and concerns the claimant had raised. No later than then, therefore, the MR requirements of regulation 7(2) were fully and finally completed. What did and did not happen in 2025 could not change this.

Your rent is declared on your claim declaration as weekly and your social landlord has confirmed this as a weekly amount. We just convert it to a monthly amount as your Universal Credit is paid monthly. This is usually the case. Universal Credit current policy is as follows:

Universal Credit always converts weekly amounts to monthly sums using 52 weeks. The issue of there being 53 rent charging days in a year is relevant only for Universal Credit (UC) claimants who have their rent charged on a weekly basis and have 53 charging periods in a calendar year.

UC claimants in the Social Rented Sector are typically charged rent weekly every Monday and so in a typical year their 12 monthly UC payments will align with the 52 charging periods. Every six years, or five if including a leap year, they will have 53 charging periods. In 2024 there will be 53 of these periods with the 53rd rent payment occurring on the final day of the calendar year. 53 charging periods will not apply in all UC claims and some claimants will not have a 53 charging period year during the life of their benefit claim.

We have considered alternative options for those with weekly tenancies, but each have their own limitations and disadvantages for claimants. The matter occurs because weekly charging periods can never be accurately aligned with monthly periods. Tenants of social housing providers are used to managing varying outgoings every month depending on whether four or five rent payments are due – not just during a year in which there are 53 charging periods.

Discretionary Housing Payments can be paid to those entitled to Housing Benefit or the housing element of Universal Credit who face a shortfall in meeting their housing costs. Since 2011, the government has provided nearly £1.7 billion in Discretionary Housing Payments to local authorities. As this is the policy we process claims by, we cannot change this for you unfortunately. However, you do have the right to make a complaint about this policy, and you can do so as follows:

On the https://Gov.UK (opens in new tab) website, you

can search for "about government policy of law" where you can complete an online form to provide information on the legislation or policy that you disagree with. Alternatively, you can also write to: Ministerial Correspondence Team Caxton House Tothill Street London SW1H 9NA I do appreciate your frustration on this matter, however, as stated we are unable to change the policy. Therefore unfortunately I cannot enter into any further discussion regarding this with you. We have to process your claim in line with current policy.

Moving on to the second ground of the appeal, I submit the FTT have erred in law in failing to consider Rule 7(2)(a) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008.

The claimant did not provide the MRN as it was not issued by the Secretary of State. In paragraph 16 of the SOR the FTT make reference to Rule 22(4)(a) which states -

However, the FTT have the power to waive requirements as per Rule 7(2)(a) which states –

The FtT should have considered which course of action to take considering the overriding objective of Rule (2)(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 which states –

From reading the SOR it appears that the FTT have failed to consider waiving the requirement for the MRN and if they did consider it they have failed to explain this. South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] UKHL 33 states:

As such, if the UT Judge accepts my submission that the FTT have erred in law on the above, I invite them to set aside the decision and remit the appeal for rehearing by a freshly constituted FTT.