Issues
Issues
The six issues to be decided in this appeal are as follows:
The first issue is whether the Respondent failed to notify the Appellant of the decision taken on 7 June 2007 to revise her entitlement to Income Support. The Respondent accepts that this was an appealable decision under section 12(1) of the Social Security Act 1998, which required written notification.
If a revised entitlement decision was not, and has not been, notified to the Appellant, what is the legal effect of that revised entitlement decision for the purposes of the First-tier Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear an appeal against it. Further, does non-notification constitute an official error as defined by regulation 1(3) of the Social Security and Child Support (Decision and Appeals) Regulations 1999 (1999 Regulations)?
If the Respondent did not notify the Appellant of the revised entitlement decision, as required by section 71(5A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, did the subsequent recoverability decisions and the recovery of overpayment constitute official errors?
The fourth issue is should the Upper Tribunal pursuant to section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), interpret section 12 of the Social Security Act 1998, to confer a right of appeal against the Respondent’s refusal to revise the recoverability decisions for official error, to give effect to the Appellant’s Article 6 ECHR rights?
Or in the alternative, does section 3(1) of the HRA, require the Upper Tribunal to interpret section 9(5) of the Social Security Act 1998, to enable time for appealing the 2007 recoverability decisions to run from the date the Respondent refused to revise those decisions for official error.
Finally, if it is found that the revised entitlement decision was never notified and the recoverability decisions were issued without such notification; and I find against the Appellant on (iv) and (v) above, should time be extended to permit the Appellant to appeal the 2007 recoverability decisions, now well beyond the 13-month statutory time limit, having regard to the principles set out in Adesina v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWCA Civ 818?
- Heading
- Introduction
- Issues
- Background facts
- Procedural history
- Submissions
- The Respondent’s submissions
- Analysis and reasons
- B: Notification of the Recoverability Decisions
- The Statutory Framework: Failure to notify and recoverability
- Notification as a Precondition for Recovery
- Findings: Official Error
- Jurisdiction
- Statutory Foundations of Tribunal Jurisdiction
- Issue 1: Legal Effect and Jurisdictional Consequences of an Unnotified Revised Entitlement Decision
- Issue 2: Appeal Rights and Refusal to Revise for Official Error: Statutory and Convention Analysis
- Issue 3: Statutory Interpretation of section 9(5) of the Social Security Act 1998 - PH and SM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
- Statutory Framework
- Case Law on Mandatory Reconsideration
- Analysis of the Appellant’s Proposed Statutory Construction of Section 9(5) of the 1998 Act
- Issue 4: Application of Adesina and the Principles Governing Time-Limits
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 249 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)