[2025] UKUT 186 (AAC)

In her observations in reply to these submissions, the Secretary of State argued, first, that the claimant’s argument that it was not obligatory that he had in fact claimed child benefit was contrary to the express provision found in section 13(1) of the SSAA.

The Secretary of State’s second argument concerned the claimant’s argument that he was entitled to child benefit for the missing period of 29 July 2019 to 24 October 2021, even if he was required to make a claim for that benefit. The Secretary of State understood this to be an argument that HMRC had erred in deciding on 23 March 2020 that the claimant was no longer entitled to child benefit on and from 29 July 2019. As to this argument, if it was the claimant’s argument, HMRC’s termination decision of 23 March 2020 was final, per section 17(1) of the SSA, subject to any appeal against that decision under section 12 of the SSA. If such an appeal had been brought and had been disallowed by the FTT on 6 April 2024, that decision was binding on the parties to that appeal (the claimant and HMRC) and the Secretary of State and the Upper Tribunal on whether the claimant was entitled to child benefit between 29 July 2019 to 24 October 2021. Furthermore, it was unclear whether the claimant had sought and been given permission to appeal by the Upper Tribunal against the FTT’s decision of 6 April 2024. If the FTT’s child benefit decision was under appeal to the Upper Tribunal, that might affect the final disposal of this appeal.

Both parties sought an oral hearing of the appeal, which I directed on 10 December 2024. In those directions I made the following observations:

“1.

Both parties have referred in their respective submissions to [the claimant] having made a (late) appeal against HMRC’s decision ending his entitlement to child benefit.

2.

If that is the case, it would seem that those proceedings are only at the First-tier Tribunal stage. I say this, firstly, because the UA-2024-001041 Upper Tribunal reference is for the first of these bereavement benefit appeals.…and does not relate to any subsequent appeal or application for permission to appeal brought by [the claimant] against a First-tier Tribunal decision concerning a (late) appeal about the ending of his entitlement to child benefit. Secondly, UTAAC has no record at present of any appeal or application for permission brought by [the claimant] against [such] a First-tier Tribunal decision. The only cases of which UTAAC has a record in which [the claimant] is [a] party, at least at present, are these two appeals.

3.

Given its potential relevance to these two appeals about entitlement to widowed parent’s allowance, it is incumbent on [the claimant], through his solicitors, to provide accurate and up-to-date information about the (late) appeal it is said [the claimant] has made to the First-tier Tribunal against HMRC’s decision ending his entitlement to child benefit. That information should include the First-tier Tribunal’s registration number for that late appeal and the most up to date information about where those (late) appeal proceedings have reached in the First-tier Tribunal. For example, has the First-tier Tribunal made a decision to admit, or not to admit, the late appeal? If so, when was that decision made and what was that decision? If the decision was a negative decision as far as [the claimant] is concerned (e.g., the First-tier Tribunal refused to admit the late appeal), what steps (if any) has [the claimant] taken to challenge that decision? The Secretary of State is not a party to those late appeal proceedings – HMRC will be respondent in those proceedings – and so will not, and cannot be expected to, know this information herself.”

By an email of 19 February 2025 to the Administrative Appeals Chamber’s office in London, the claimant advised that he would not be attending the oral hearing of the Secretary of State’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal on 6 March 2025 and would not be represented at that hearing either. He asked for the appeal to be decided in his absence.

In the letter and chronology the claimant attached to the email he made or repeated the following points of relevance:

As to point (iv) made by the claimant, the evidence he provided with his chronology on 19 February 2025 was in fact an email to the FTT, dated 25 August 2024, in which he seemingly sought to reargue issues around the striking out of his child benefit appeal, including whether he had applied for mandatory reconsideration within time, and he asked the FTT to “let me know the next steps are to apply to the upper Tribunal”. That evidence does not show that the claimant had made an application to the Upper Tribunal on 25 August 2024. At the time of writing this decision the position remains that the only cases before the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal involving the claimant are these two appeals concerning WPA.