[2025] UKUT 249 (AAC)

By contrast, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the Appellant did receive the recoverability decisions.

I note that the Appellant’s evidence at its highest, is that she is unable to recall whether she received the recoverability decisions. In reaching my finding that she was notified of the recoverability decisions I have considered the following: the Respondent has produced an internal record documenting the staged decision-making process used to determine whether the Appellant had been overpaid (as analysed above). The Respondent has also provided the recoverability decisions themselves, along with calculations for each specific period of alleged overpayment. Debt management records show that on 28 August 2007, an arrangement was made for the Appellant to pay the DWP £5 per month by Bank Giro Credit, starting from 28 September 2007. The Respondent has produced evidence that from 2 October 2007, the Appellant made monthly £5 payments to the DWP. There is also evidence that around 11 October 2007, the Appellant stated to the Respondent an intention to contact the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) to assist her in contesting the amount being recovered. Subsequently, on 6 November 2007, the CAB contacted the DWP about the balance owed, having sent a letter to this effect to the DWP. On 7 November 2007, the Appellant set up a direct debit viz payment toward the money owed. No further contact was made by the Appellant or CAB with the DWP until she made contact following the initiation of criminal proceedings against her in March 2008. There is no evidence or suggestion that the recovery of overpayments was stayed pending the outcome of the criminal prosecution, and the Appellant continued to pay £5 per month by direct debit throughout the period of the criminal proceedings, from around 26 March 2008 until 14 September 2009. It was only on her acquittal that she cancelled that direct debit.

Considering all the evidence above, I am satisfied to the civil standard that, while the Appellant cannot recall receiving the recoverability decisions, the Appellant accepts (or doesn’t dispute) that she set up a payment plan with the DWP and had sought advice from the CAB about the overpayments. I find therefore that it is more probable than not that the Appellant was notified of the recoverability decisions.

I observe for the purpose of my analysis below, that those recoverability decisions all confirmed that the Appellant had a right of appeal, which she did not exercise timeously following notification.