[2025] UKUT 249 (AAC)

On 12 November 2020, the Appellant requested an “any time” revision of the six recoverability decisions for official error. She argued that she had never been notified of the revised entitlement decision, as required by section 71(5A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, and that the DWP had failed to apply relevant capital disregards.

The Respondent refused the request in a letter dated 26 October 2021, concluding no official error had occurred. A decision dated 19 October 2021 was attached to this correspondence explaining why the anytime revision request was refused. This summarised the evidence the Appellant gave during interviews with the Respondent in 2006. In the letter the Respondent rehearsed different permutations of mandatory reconsideration cases where the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal and concluded with “I am unable to revise/supersede the original decision dated 29/5/2007 as per DMG above”.

The Appellant treated the above correspondence as an invitation to seek mandatory reconsideration of the refusal to revise and submitted a request for mandatory reconsideration on 25 November 2021. After receiving no response, her representative wrote again on 4 August 2022, reiterating the grounds of official error and explaining the delay in seeking revision of the recoverability decisions. The Respondent treated this as a late appeal against the 2007 recoverability decisions and referred it directly to the First-tier Tribunal, applying for it to be struck out for lack of jurisdiction. The Appellant in submissions to the Tribunal, maintained that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with an appeal on the grounds that revision was sought for official error and therefore the 13-month appeal time limit did not apply (GJ v SSWP [2022] UKUT 340 and PH and SM v SSWP [2018] UKUT 404 relied upon).

The judge concluded that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the 22 June 2007 and 13 September 2007 recoverability decisions. He observed that the authorities relied upon by the Appellant applied only to decisions governed by the post-2013 mandatory reconsideration regime. As the decisions the Appellant sought to appeal, predated that regime, the judge concluded that no right of appeal existed more than 13 months after the original decisions were made. He declined to extend time to appeal those decisions under Adesina v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWCA Civ 818, noting the Appellant had not appealed the recoverability decisions (dated June and September 2007) within the prescribed limits, had she done so she could have raised the legality of those decisions (and the revised entitlement decision) on appeal.

The First-Tier Tribunal granted permission to appeal on 13 December 2023, on the basis that the case raised legal issues requiring guidance from the Upper Tribunal, regarding the application of PH and SM v SSWP [2018] UKUT 404 to pre-2013 mandatory reconsideration cases.