Conclusions
Disposal
It is appropriate to exercise my discretion to set aside the tribunal’s decision dated 16 January 2023 under section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Having done this, section 12(2)(b) of that Act provides that I must either remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal with directions for its reconsideration or remake the decision.
I am satisfied a fresh hearing is required so that a First-tier Tribunal can explore all the arguments and make appropriate findings of fact.
I therefore remit the appeal for rehearing before a new tribunal. It will make a fresh decision about ZA’s entitlement to housing benefit from 22 March 2021.
While I have set aside the tribunal’s decision dated 16 January 2023, I am not making any findings or expressing any view about whether ZA was entitled to housing benefit. The next tribunal will need to hear and assess any oral evidence and representations and consider the paper evidence and make its own findings of fact.
Judith Butler
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Authorised for issue: 25 July 2024
- Heading
- Section 1
- What this appeal is about
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The oral hearing of the appeal
- The legislative framework
- The Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (“the 2006 regulations”)
- Subject to paragraph (10), where—
- Case law
- My decision
- Discussion Which decision was being appealed?
- Addressing whether ZA had capital or was to be treated as having capital
- Which options were available when calculating ZA’s capital through her shareholding in CG?
- How the tribunal dealt with Barnet’s other arguments
- Is Prest v Petrodel relevant when calculating ZA’s capital?
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 222 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)