Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
The Issues for Determination
The appeal raises the following four jurisdictional questions:
Whether the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider an appeal against an alleged revised entitlement decision that was never notified to the Appellant.
Whether the Appellant has a right of appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal to revise the recoverability decisions for official error.
Whether section 9(5) of the Social Security Act 1998, properly construed, permits an in-time appeal to be brought against the 2007 recoverability decisions on the basis that time runs from the date of a refusal to revise those decisions for official error.
Whether an extension of time should be granted, applying the principles in Adesina, to appeal the unnotified revised entitlement decision or the recoverability decisions.
- 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)