[2024] UKUT 345 (AAC)

The errors of law I have found the FTT made in its decisions of 29 December 2021 and 5 July 2023 were plainly material to its decision on Ms Heaney’s appeal to it against the Secretary of State’s sanction decision of 6 October 2020. I therefore set aside both FTT decisions under section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

There was no serious argument before me that I should not remake the FTT’s decision on Ms Heaney’s appeal if the FTT decisions were set aside. I therefore remake the FTT decision on Ms Heaney’s appeal under section 12(2)(b)(ii) and (4) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

In remaking the decision on Ms Heaney’s appeal, I am satisfied, for the reasons I have already given, that regulation 30(3)(c) of the Framework Regs was in fact met. This was through the GDIP which had been provided to Ms Heaney. As a result, and as this was the only point of contention as to whether Ms Heaney in fact had a green deal plan, I find that the energy plan Ms Heaney had entered into with HELMS was a ‘green deal plan’.

That then leaves me to decide the appropriate sanction. Consistently with the ‘but for’ position of the FTT in paragraph of 138 of its substantive decision, and my having found the FTT had erred in a law both in its approach to proportionality under regulation 79 of the framework Regs and in relation to what the FTT considered it was precluded by the FTT’s preliminary decision from taking into account in deciding the appropriate sanction, and applying the (agreed) Hope and Glory legal approach, I can find no reason to disagree with the FTT’s ‘but for’ view that the Secretary of State’s sanction decision of reduction should be confirmed. The Secretary of State’s sanction decision of 6 October 2020 is detailed and takes account of all relevant matters. I should add that no real argument was made to me by any party that a different result should obtain on my remaking the FTT’s decision.