[2025] UKUT 249 (AAC)

The Appellant relies upon the following two Upper Tribunal authorities.

The Upper Tribunal in R(CJ) and SG addressed the position where a claimant seeks mandatory reconsideration within 13 months of the original decision, yet the Secretary of State declines to extend time and refuses to consider the application. The Tribunal concluded that such a refusal is properly characterised as a refusal to revise the decision, within the terms of section 12(3A). The statutory right of appeal is thereby engaged, ensuring the claimant is not deprived of a right of appeal due to the Secretary of State’s decision not to entertain a late, but otherwise procedurally permissible, application.

The scope of the right of appeal when a mandatory reconsideration for official error is requested more than 13 months after the original decision was squarely addressed in PH and SM. The Upper Tribunal observed that regulation 3(5)(a) of the 1999 Regulations does not impose any temporal restriction on applications for revision on grounds of official error. Accordingly, if such a request is refused, an appeal may proceed even though the original application fell outside the typical 13-month appeal time limit, provided the appeal is initiated within one month of being notified of the outcome of the application to revise. This makes clear that the absence of a time bar for official error revision applications preserves access to the appeal route in such circumstances.

It follows from these authorities that a right of appeal endures both where the Secretary of State refuses to consider a mandatory reconsideration application within 13 months and, in some scenarios, beyond 13 months where the tribunal’s jurisdiction so allows. In both situations, it is the notification of the outcome of mandatory reconsideration that starts the running of the appeal period.