[2024] UKUT 305 (AAC)

The Appellant was granted permission to appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s decision on three grounds, described as follows in the Upper Tribunal’s permission determination:

“ground 1 - with the greatest of respect, the First-tier Tribunal’s reasons indicate that it arguably had little appreciation of the nature of the legislative scheme it was required to apply, and thereby misdirected itself in law. The Tribunal seemed to think it was relevant that the WGLG is not specifically mentioned in the [Universal Credit Regulations 2013] but made no reference to the applicable definition of “grant”. The Tribunal appears to have thought that regulation 68(4) applies when a student receives a loan and a grant, but it seems to me that regulation 68(4) deals with the case of a student without any student loan…Regulation 70 was mentioned, underlined and in bold, yet I struggle to see why it was of any relevance let alone such significance (regulation 70 only applies where a student’s income is based on grant income);

ground 2 – if the Tribunal deemed the Appellant to have received a maximum student loan of £8289, it arguably gave inadequate reasons for its decision…Regulation 69(1) applies where the student would be able to acquire “the maximum student loan” by taking reasonable steps to do so. The Student Finance Wales documentation arguably suggests that the Appellant acquired the maximum student loan that was available to her. In those circumstances, it is not at all clear to me what ‘reasonable steps’ she could have taken to persuade Student Finance Wales to increase the amount of her student loan. Arguably, the Tribunal’s reasons were inadequate because it failed to explain what reasonable steps the Appellant should have taken in order to obtain the supposed ‘maximum student loan’ of £8,289;

- ground 3 – if the Tribunal arrived at an income calculation for the Appellant by adding the WGLG to the actual student loan received, arguably its reasons were also inadequate. Unless a grant falls within the exceptions in regulation 68(3), then, for a student with a student loan, regulation 68(3) requires the grant to be disregarded. The Tribunal’s reasons do not explain why the Appellant’s WGLG was taken into account, i.e. why it was one of the exceptional types of grant that are not disregarded under regulation 68(3). If the Tribunal disregarded only part of the WGLG, its reasons were arguably inadequate because it failed to explain why one part of the grant fell to be disregarded but the rest did not.”