[2025] UKUT 249 (AAC)

The Appellant was first awarded Income Support in 1991. In May 2007, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) decided to revise her entitlement to Income Support on the basis that she had received income from a sub-tenant and held capital above the prescribed limit during specified periods from July 2002 to 29 June 2006. This revision of her entitlement led to six decisions made on 22 June and 13 September 2007 identifying the amounts of overpaid Income Support (“the recoverability decisions”). The Appellant contends that she was never notified of the revised entitlement decision, which should have preceded the recoverability decisions, a position she states is supported by the absence of any record of notification of that decision in the DWP’s internal documentation. Nor has the DWP provided a copy of the revised entitlement decision. She cannot recall whether she received the recoverability decisions. The Respondent maintains that the Appellant was notified of the revised entitlement decision.

The Respondent confirmed that the Appellant was also notified of the recoverability decisions dated 22 June and 13 September 2007, which identified the amount of overpayment for a specified period. These letters also informed the Appellant of the reason why the Respondent concluded there had been overpayment of Income Support for the identified period (i.e. because of her (or her family’s) savings or because of income received from a tenant or boarder). Each letter concluded that there was a right of appeal against the decision. However, the Respondent confirmed that the documents in the appeal bundle entitled ‘Overpayment Decision’, which referred to the preceding revised entitlement decision of 7 June 2007 and set out the legal framework for making the recoverability decisions would not have been provided to the Appellant.

It is not in dispute that the Appellant had a repayment arrangement with the DWP between 2 October 2007 until 10 August 2009 concerning the putative overpayment of Income Support. A monthly direct debit was set up from the Appellant’s bank account to the DWP during that period.

On 26 March 2008, the Appellant contacted the DWP concerning criminal proceedings which had been instituted (see Debt Management Records) and she was directed to the fraud section. There is no evidence or information before the Upper Tribunal of what criminal charge(s) the Appellant had been indicted and prosecuted for, albeit in a letter from her representative to the Respondent, dated 25 November 2021, the charge was described as a “failure to disclose”.

On 23 June 2009, the Appellant was acquitted following a jury trial. According to the Appellant, it was accepted at trial that the sub-tenant income was covered by the “Rent a Room” scheme and that the capital she had was used for home repairs and debt repayment. She states that the significance of the verdict was that these sources of funds should not have been construed as ‘income’ by the DWP for the purposes of assessing whether she had been overpaid Income Support during the specified periods. She states, this is consistent with her being advised by her trial counsel, following her acquittal, that she did not owe the DWP any money. She therefore cancelled the direct debit to DWP on 10 August 2009.

Debt management records from the DWP reflect this sequence of events. A 2009 entry noted the acquittal and stated that no further action would be taken. Three entries between 2011 and 2012 record:

Between 2015 and 2020, there was no contact from the DWP. In 2020, the Appellant began receiving her state pension, deductions were made from this by the DWP to recover the alleged overpayments.