![[2025] UKUT 026 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Second main issue: did the Respondent undertake “mandatory reconsideration” of its decision on Mrs W’s new carer’s allowance claim?
Second main issue: did the Respondent undertake “mandatory reconsideration” of its decision on Mrs W’s new carer’s allowance claim?
In its response to the Upper Tribunal querying whether the second of the two decisions of the Respondent under appeal had been subject to “mandatory reconsideration” by the Respondent, the Respondent submitted that, despite the “mandatory reconsideration” notice of 23 November 2021 referring the first of the Respondent’s decisions under appeal (only), it was right to interpret it, in context, as mandatory reconsideration of both decisions of the Respondent under appeal. I am persuaded by this argument, which means that the FTT did have jurisdiction in relation to Mrs W’s appeals against both decisions of the Respondent.
- 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