[2024] UKUT 261 (AAC)

This appeal can be dealt with relatively shortly. The test for determining whether a person is a non-dependant is not determined by a crude measure of the time spent living at any one address. Rather, decision-makers and tribunals must make a holistic assessment of all relevant factors in deciding whether the person in question “normally lives in the accommodation with the renter” (paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 4 to the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/376).

How does this play out in the case of a young person who goes away to university? A good starting point is to identify the legal basis of their living arrangements at university. Do they have a tenancy or licence in the private rented sector where they are at college? Or do they have a tenancy or licence in a university hall of residence? If the latter, are they able to stay (and do they stay) in residence during some or all of the periods of university vacation? It is well known that many universities rely on using their halls of residence to facilitate their conference trade during the vacations and so exclude students for periods out of term time. There is then a further range of markers on which findings of fact will need to be made. Where is the young person registered to vote? Where are they registered with a GP surgery and dentist? If their bank or building society communicates with them by post, which address do they use? Which address is their mobile phone contract registered at? Do they have a part-time job and, if so, where is it? Where do they keep the bulk of their clothes and belongings? Do they have a pet and, if so, where is it kept? This list should not be regarded in any way as exhaustive. A holistic assessment requires consideration of all such relevant factors.

In the present case the FTT singularly failed to explore any of these indicators, focussing exclusively on the length of time spent at each address.