[2025] UKUT 168 (AAC)

The Secretary of State sought and was given permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the FTT’s decision on three grounds.

The first (and main) ground of appeal is that the FTT erred in law in deciding that, following a decision on a claim which gave effect to the claimant’s decision as to the extent (if any) of any deferment of his entitlement to the state pension, the Secretary of State had power to revise her decision under section 9 of the Social Security Act 1998 to give effect to a different decision the claimant could have made on that question. This error of law then extended to the FTT considering it was entitled to set aside the Secretary of State’s decision so as to give effect to a different decision that the claimant could have made as to the extent (if any) of any deferment of his entitlement than the claimant in fact did make. It is argued under this first ground of appeal that the issues in this appeal are distinguishable from that which was in issue and decided by the Court of Appeal in SSWP v Miah [2024] EWCA Civ 186; [2024] 1 WLR 3012.

The second ground of appeal argues, if it is necessary to do so, that the FTT erred in law in holding (to the extent that it did) that the Secretary of State was required in law to have made enquires of the claimant before giving effect to the claimant’s decision, when he made his claim for the state pension, that he wished to get his state pension from 20 August 2022. It is argued under this ground that in relation to deferring entitlement to the state pension and the date that may be chosen by a claimant in relation to this, there will always be the possibility that a claimant has made a mistake, because the determination will typically give rise to alternative and inconsistent financial consequences for a claimant. It is submitted in consequence that absent any particular matter to put a reasonable Secretary of State on inquiry about the possibility of such a mistake having been made (which it is said is not this case given the FTT’s finding that the Secretary of State was legally entitled to take at face value exactly what the claimant had put on his claim form), the Secretary of State is under no duty to check the position with each claimant before making an award on the claim. That would be to impose an unreasonable and disproportionate administrative burden on the Secretary of State.

The third ground of appeal contends that the FTT acted unfairly in criticising the lack of inquiries the Secretary of State made of the claimant before the state pension claim was decided on 17 August 2022 in circumstances where, it is argued, the Secretary of State was not given adequate notice that this was an issue the FTT would address as an issue arising on the appeal. This ground was subsumed within the second ground by the time of the hearing of the appeal before me.