[2024] UKUT 222 (AAC)

Neither party asked for an oral hearing. Having considered the paper file and the response provided by Barnet, I decided to hold an oral hearing, to clarify Barnet’s position, including its decision-making process and whether Barnet had calculated the capital ZA actually held or instead treated her as having it. I made directions on 21 March 2024 for the parties to attend a hearing and to provide further written responses before the hearing took place.

I held an oral hearing at the Upper Tribunal’s London venue on 17 June 2024. Barnet was represented by Ms Parry. I am grateful to her for attending and clarifying the council’s position about the decisions it made.

Although the Upper Tribunal received a written response from ZA dated 21 October 2023, it did not send a copy of it to Barnet. On behalf of the Upper Tribunal Office, I apologise to Barnet for this oversight. Having received Barnet’s submissions for the hearing on 14 June 2024, I realised it had not seen ZA’s response. I therefore arranged for my clerk to give Ms Parry a copy shortly before the hearing. She confirmed she had read it, albeit briefly. ZA’s response relates to the benefit trap, one of the alternative arguments put forward by Barnet, which the tribunal stated it did not consider in detail in reaching its decision.

ZA did not attend the hearing. Her husband and representative, JA, contacted the Upper Tribunal on 02 May 2024 stating they preferred not to attend. He wrote that they could not afford legal representation and had found the tribunal process to be affecting their health. I made directions in response explaining ZA would not require legal representation at any hearing but also confirming she was not directed to attend. On 17 June 2024, taking account of the circumstances, Ms Parry’s representations, and applying the overriding objective, I decided to proceed with the hearing. The decision under appeal is over three years old, and the focus of the hearing was on Barnet’s position and decision-making, which Barnet, rather than ZA, needed to clarify and explain.