[2025] UKUT 200 (AAC)

Submissions for IL

IL had made written submissions in the form of a letter dated 27 November 2023 (reiterated on 06 September 2024). These stated the FTT had exercised and interpreted the law with individualisation and sensitivity, which he believed was appropriate for the Rule of Law to work, especially for matters of social care and social justice. IL wrote that the FTT considered the specific circumstances, which in his opinion, showed clearly that he never intended to commit benefit fraud. IL also wrote that the FTT acted with empathy and understanding regarding his financial circumstances and the detrimental effect the recoverability of the overpayment decision was having on his health condition. He argued this is what a humane legal and judiciary system is.

IL also argued that if the law is not characterised by flexibility and is not applied with discretion and individualisation, we are in danger of falling for an uncommon type of discrimination. He argued that even if one citizen is treated unfairly or unlawfully, despite being blameless, the legal and judiciary system is not solid and error-proof and has failed to serve its purpose. IL wrote that the law and judiciary system was treating him equally to someone who committed benefit fraud intentionally when it was obviously not true. He argued that treating civilians in this way does not promote an honest relationship between them and the State.

At the hearing, on behalf of IL, Ms D submitted that IL felt DWP had treated him like a criminal, due to the wording of the letters it sent him about the overpayment. These had been extremely aggressive at times, and at one point stated IL had failed to disclose the material fact that he was receiving the occupational pension.

Ms D submitted that there was no way for IL to know that he should have written to DWP stating it should not recover the money, rather than to appeal to the FTT. Ms D stated she did not understand how IL, as a benefit claimant, could know and have this information to proceed to a different court instead. Ms D submitted that she and IL had been very confused by DWP’s actions and the way it had behaved.

Ms D stated that after IL lodged his appeal to the FTT, DWP continued taking money from his overpayments, when they had expected this would be halted while the appeal went on. Although there was a period of time when DWP stopped taking the money (and also started paying IL £4.58 per week for about 5 or 6 months), DWP started deducting money again, at a high rate (£200 per month). Ms D submitted that DWP had taken around £2,300 from IL’s personal independence payment (PIP). IL’s PIP had itself stopped being paid after he notified DWP he had moved to Greece and was receiving disability benefit from the Greek authorities.

Ms D stated that while the law stops where it stops, she wanted to emphasise the very detrimental effect the situation had on IL. She described applying for adaptations to the bathroom because of the difficulties in trying to bathe IL as his carer but being refused the adaptations because IL was receiving NSESA. She described that she and IL felt worried and trapped after DWP accused him of the overpayment and that it was an unstable time that put pressure on their marriage.

Ms D argued that DWP should have worded the NSESA claim form more carefully so that people did not fall into this situation. She also submitted that she did not know who held DWP accountable for the mistakes it admitted making (which did not seem to prevent it recovering the money it incorrectly paid out).