[2025] UKUT 249 (AAC)

This appeal concerns the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal to hear the Appellant’s appeal against six decisions made on 22 June 2007 and 13 September 2007 under section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. These decisions notified the Appellant that the Secretary of State intended to recover amounts of Income Support to which the Appellant was not entitled (the ‘recoverability decisions’).

The First-tier Tribunal declined jurisdiction, rejecting the Appellant’s submission that the time limit for appealing the 2007 recoverability decisions should run from the date she was notified of the refusal to revise for official error. The judge observed that the recoverability decisions pre-dated the mandatory reconsideration regime and therefore PH and SM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DLA)(JSA) [2018] UKUT 404 (AAC); [2019] AACR 14, did not apply. The judge further held that section 12 of the Social Security Act 1998 did not confer a right of appeal against a refusal to revise for official error, (R(IS) 15/04 and R(TC) 1/05 applied). Furthermore, he did not consider it necessary to extend the time to appeal the recoverability decisions to ensure compliance with Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) (Adesina v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWCA Civ 818, considered).

The judge granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal seeking guidance on the application of PH and SM to cases which pre-date the commencement of regulation 3ZA of the Social Security and Child Support (Decision and Appeals) Regulations 1999 (the 1999 Regulations).

For the reasons I give below, the decision of the judge on jurisdiction was correct and no material error of law arises in the refusal of the First-tier Tribunal to admit the appeal stands.

At the outset I would like to thank Mr Stockton, from Citizens Advise Bureau who represented the Appellant, and Ms Mc Arthur, counsel instructed on behalf of Secretary of State. I was greatly assisted by their well-structured, clear and focused written and oral advocacy, thus making my task of reaching conclusions on the complex issues arising in this appeal, much easier.