[2024] UKUT 261 (AAC)

The appeal is refused.

The decision made by the Secretary of State on 23/10/2022 is confirmed.

[The Appellant] isn't entitled to an additional bedroom allowance within her housing costs element of Universal Credit.

[The Appellant’s] daughter, [A] commenced a full-time degree course at University in Manchester in September 2021 and is therefore not part of [the Appellant’s] extended benefit unit, only returning to [the Appellant’s] address for 13-14 weeks a year during holiday periods.

The Tribunal found as fact that [the Appellant], at the date of decision, is a 47 year old single parent living at … For the purposes and relevant only to this appeal, [the Appellant] has 2 daughters [A and a younger daughter]. [A] is in advanced education having commenced a three year full-time degree course at University in Manchester in September 2021 with payment of Child Benefit for [A] ending on 7 September 2020. [The younger daughter] lives in the same household as [the Appellant] and is in full-time education at BTec level with payment of Child Benefit … ongoing from 11 April 2022 at the weekly rate of £21.80. There are no other people in [the Appellant]’s household. [A] is away at University during term time but home in the holidays, namely Christmas, Easter and Summer holidays (page 33) which [the Appellant] states is 13/14 weeks of the year (page 35). … The Respondent accepts that [the Appellant] previously received the additional bedroom allowance within her housing costs element of UC, after [A] started her degree course in September 2021 but asserts that this was an error and [the Appellant] has no entitlement to an additional bedroom allowance within her housing costs element of UC from September 2021 (pages l-J).

The Tribunal had to apply Schedule 4(9) of the UC Regulations 2013 when determining if [A] was a member of [the Appellant’s] Extended benefit unit. [A] was 20 years old at the date of decision and a full-time student on a three year degree course living and attending University in Manchester. [The Appellant’s] evidence was that [A] returns home during holiday times which she estimated to be 13-14 weeks per year therefore for the majority of the time [A] is attending and living at University in Manchester. The Tribunal therefore found that [A] is not a member of [the Appellant’s] Extended benefit unit as she is not a child or qualifying young person for whom [the Appellant] is responsible nor a non-dependant. The Tribunal did consider if [A’]s absence from [the Appellant]’s Extended benefit unit could be treated as temporary as prescribed by Schedule 4 (11) but found that [A’s] absence exceeded 6 months and the exceptions prescribed by Schedule 4(2) and 4(3) did not apply to [A].