![[2025] UKUT 026 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Other case management by the Upper Tribunal
Other case management by the Upper Tribunal
I gave case management directions aimed at enabling Mrs W to obtain free legal representation by the Free Representation Unit; however, Mrs W declined to engage that organisation.
The case management directions issued on 10 September 2024 directed listing the appeal for a half day hearing.
On 4 December 2024 the Upper Tribunal issued my decision refusing applications made by Mrs W (i) to set aside the permission decision (ii) to lengthen the hearing time (iii) to postpone the hearing listed for 13 January 2025 and (iv) that I recuse myself from further involvement in the case.
The hearing on 13 January 2025 proceeded in the absence of Mrs W (or her representative, Mr W); I was satisfied that they had been properly notified of the hearing – the Upper Tribunal administration had in fact telephoned Mr W a few days before the hearing to ask why they had not confirmed their attendance (in response to the notice of hearing they had received), and were told that Mr W and Mrs W did not intend to come, as they were unhappy that the hearing had been listed for (only) half a day. I was also satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to proceed, given that Mr W and Mrs W had made a conscious decision not to attend (and so there was no prospect of their attending an adjourned hearing).
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve an error of law
- Background
- Mr W’s PIP award
- Mrs W’s new claim for carer’s allowance
- The FTT’s case management
- The challenged FTT decision
- The Upper Tribunal proceedings
- Other case management by the Upper Tribunal
- Why I have concluded that there was no material error of law in the challenged FTT decision
- First main issue: should Mrs W’s new carer’s allowance award have been “backdated” to the start of Mr W’s PIP award?
- Was the FTT’s decision on Mr W’s PIP appeal a decision on appeal awarding a qualifying benefit ?
- Was Mrs W’s carer’s allowance claim made “within three months of” the FTT’s decision on Mr W’s PIP appeal?
- Second main issue: did the Respondent undertake “mandatory reconsideration” of its decision on Mrs W’s new carer’s allowance claim?
- Other issues raised by Mrs W
- Conclusions