![[2024] UKUT 261 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Postscript: the DWP’s own guidance
Postscript: the DWP’s own guidance
Finally, it is noteworthy that the DWP’s own guidance to decision-makers (DM) is as follows (ADM Chapter F3: Housing Costs Element: Support for renters, para F3034):
In a case where a student lives at a university address during term time and lives at their parents’ home for some weekends and during the holidays, the DM should decide which address is where they normally reside. Whichever address is chosen will remain the student’s normal residence even when they spend time at the other home.
A student still retains a bedroom, furniture and some clothing at their parents’ home, they still get some mail there, are registered with the local dentist and are actually resident for 18 full weeks and most weekends. On this evidence the DM decides that the student normally resides at their parents’ home and are only temporarily absent from it whilst at university.
Alternatively, the DM may decide that because the student has a tenancy agreement for a university address, they have some furniture and clothes there, they live there for 32 weeks of the year and are liable for gas, electricity and a tv licence that they normally reside at the university address and are only temporarily absent from it whilst back living with their parents.
Plainly the two examples given in the second and third paragraphs of that official guidance represent two cases that may be seen as sitting at opposite ends of a spectrum. In the real world more difficult value judgements may need to be made on cases in between those two extremes in deciding whether a person “normally lives” at one address or another, having balanced all relevant considerations. However, what the DWP guidance does make clear, consistently with the case law discussed above, is that a simplistic temporal test is not determinative for deciding whether a person is a non-dependant.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow both appeals. The decisions of the First-tier Tribunal made on 3 May 2023 under file number SC246/22/01293 and on 29 August 2023 under file number SC246/
- Introduction
- Why this is important
- The context of the present appeal
- The DWP’s decisions in this case
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision on the entitlement appeal
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision on the overpayment appeal
- The Appellant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal
- The legislation governing non-dependants in the Universal Credit scheme
- The relevant case law on the meaning of “non-dependant”
- Discussion
- Disposal
- Postscript: the DWP’s own guidance
- Conclusions