[2025] UKUT 299 (AAC)

The legal mechanism allowing a closed period supersession decision to be made contains the elements set out at paragraph 195 above.

A closed period supersession decision cannot be made preserving an existing UC or HB benefit award on the ground of relevant change of circumstances, where, at the date of the supersession decision, the claimant does not meet a condition of entitlement (here, of being in Great Britain).

Nor, in these circumstances, can a closed period supersession be made preserving the award on the ground it is anticipated a relevant change of circumstances will occur.

The correct approach to apply to the circumstances faced by SC and by MJ was to use the supersession ground that there had been a relevant change of circumstances, namely that each claimant did not satisfy an entitlement condition to benefit, and to make a decision disallowing each claimant’s benefit award.

It was not an abuse of power for:

A closed period supersession decision does not create a nil award of UC.

FTT1’s Statement of Reasons regarding SC’s appeal does not explain the decision expressed in its Decision Notice that SC’s UC award should be suspended. FTT1’s Statement of Reasons explains a different decision, namely that FTT1 decided SC should have a nil award of UC and revised the SSWP’s decision in the terms. FTT1 has therefore failed to provide adequate reasoning to support its decision, because the Statement of Reasons does not explain the contents of the Decision Notice.

To the extent that it decided SC’s UC award should have been suspended by the SSWP, FTT1 failed to make adequate factual findings or provide adequate reasons to explain how SC fell within any of the circumstances providing for this in regulation 44 of the UC etc. (D&A) regulations 2013.

FTT1’s Statement of Reasons failed to provide adequate reasoning to support its conclusion that the SSWP should have made a nil award of UC to SC for the period while she was absent from Great Britain. To the extent that it was using “nil award of UC” to describe a closed period supersession decision and concluded one could be made in SC’s circumstances, FTT1 misdirected itself in law. FTT1 also failed to make adequate findings of fact or provide adequate reasoning to explain how a nil award of UC could generally be made.

The matters described at paragraphs 272 to 274 above were material errors of law by FTT1.

MJ’s primary argument is that FTT2 made an error of law in not deciding a prospective closed period supersession could apply. MJ’s secondary argument is that it was an error of law not to decide that it was an abuse of power by LB Bromley to make the supersession decision it made on 20 March 2023, rather than wait until MJ returned to Great Britain, and make a closed period supersession decision instead. I have decided that FTT2 did not make an error of law in relation to either matter.

At the hearing, Mr Williams confirmed the parties (MJ and the SSWP) agreed the Upper Tribunal did not need to spend much time looking at FTT2’s decision beyond considering his primary and secondary arguments. Having considered and rejected those arguments, I therefore have not identified any material error of law by FTT2 in its decision dated 08 November 2023.