![[2025] UKUT 026 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Other issues raised by Mrs W
Other issues raised by Mrs W
No other error of law in the challenged FTT decision was made out in Mrs W’s reasons for appealing or subsequent submissions on the appeal. Mrs W’s complaints about the Department for Work and Pensions show no legal error by the FTT; and her complaints about procedural irregularity by the FTT were entirely unpersuasive; there is nothing to suggest that the FTT’s procedures were other than fair and just, as required by its procedural rules.
- 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