[2025] UKUT 200 (AAC)

Around 18 years ago, the claimant, IL, was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, a progressive, debilitating, permanent medical condition. In around 2020, IL had to give up his work as a university lecturer, due to the progression of his medical condition. IL claimed NSESA on 27 April 2020. When claiming the benefit, IL listed in his claim form that he was receiving an occupational pension. At that time, the Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”), which acts on behalf of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (“SSWP”), did not make any further enquiries in relation to IL’s notification.

On 02 July 2020, DWP awarded IL NSESA, with his entitlement to the benefit starting on 04 May 2020. Later, on 13 October 2021, DWP wrote to IL asking for information about the pension he had declared when making his NSESA claim. IL provided this on 04 November 2021, including a copy of his payslip from the Universities Superannuation Scheme (“USS”) showing the pension he was receiving.

On 30 November 2021, DWP decided that IL’s USS pension payments needed to be taken into account when assessing his entitlement to NSESA from 04 May 2020 onwards. DWP decided that as a result of those payments, IL was not entitled to any NSESA between 04 May 2020 and 29 November 2021 inclusive. On 07 December 2021, DWP wrote a decision letter to IL, stating he was not entitled to NSESA.

On 30 December 2021, DWP decided IL had been overpaid £8,835.87 of NSESA for the period from 04 May 2020 to 29 November 2021 inclusive. DWP decided this overpayment was recoverable from him under section 71ZB(1)(c) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”).

IL appealed to the First-tier Tribunal on 04 May 2022. HM Courts and Tribunals registered two appeals for IL, although the substance of his challenge was actually against DWP’s decision to recover the £8,835.87 of overpaid NSESA from him. IL argued that that DWP made a mistake paying him the NSESA and he would be caused difficulties by repaying the money (which had already been spent). IL also argued that receiving the NSESA had reduced his USS pension payments, because the overall increase in money had triggered a higher income tax liability.