[2025] UKUT 131 (AAC)

Appeal No. UA-2024-000168-PIP

Between:

CJ

Appellant

- v -

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

Respondent

Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Church

Mode of hearing: Oral hearing at Field House, London

Representation:

Appellant: Mr Matthew Ahluwalia of counsel, instructed by Osbornes Solicitors LLP

Respondent: Mr Jack Anderson of counsel, instructed by the GLD

On appeal from:

Tribunal: The First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

Tribunal Case No: SC154/23/01552

Tribunal Venue: Fox Court

Decision Date: 17 October 2023

SUMMARY OF DECISION

REVIEWS, REVISIONS AND SUPERSESSIONS (30); Revision: general (30.7); Supersession: general (30.9)

TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE (34); Tribunal jurisdiction (34.10)

In this decision the Upper Tribunal decides that the First-tier Tribunal was entitled to find that a letter the Appellant received which purported to communicate a decision on her entitlement to Personal Independence Payment was not itself a decision, and it did not establish that the decision it described had been made.

The judge was entitled to conclude that there was therefore no decision under section 8 or 10 of the Social Security Act 1998 for the Appellant to appeal, and he was therefore bound to strike out the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.

Further, even had the Secretary of State made the decision that the letter purported to communicate, that decision would not have carried a right of appeal because it amounted to a decision not to revise or supersede the previous decision, and the only appealable decision was the decision she had decided neither to revise nor supersede.

Appeal dismissed.

Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judge follow.

DECISION