[2025] UKUT 299 (AAC)

Appeal No. UA-2024-000177-USTA and UA-2024-000528-HB

Between:

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Appellant

- v -

SC

Respondent

MJ

Appellant

-v-

London Borough of Bromley

First Respondent

-and-

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Second Respondent

Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Butler

Mode of hearing: In person, at Field House, London (with MJ observing by video)

Representation:

SSWP: Mr Richard Howell (Counsel, instructed by the Government Legal

Department)

SC: Mrs LP

MJ: Mr Martin Williams, Child Poverty Action Group (“CPAG”)

London Borough Did not participate

of Bromley:

On appeal from:

SC v SSWP:

Tribunal: First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

Tribunal Case No: SC306/22/00175

Tribunal Venue: Boston

Decision Date: 28 July 2023

MJ v LB of Bromley:

Tribunal: First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

Tribunal Case No: SC154/23/02119

Tribunal Venue: Bexleyheath

Decision Date: 08 November 2023

SUMMARY OF DECISION

KEYWORD NAME (Keyword Number)

Housing Benefit – other (16.9)

Supersession – general (30.9)

Universal Credit – other (45.9)

Judicial summary

These appeals raise a shared legal issue about the legal mechanism for making closed period supersession decisions, which is where benefit entitlement is changed for a specific, closed period of time. They involve the question whether an award of universal credit or housing benefit can be superseded by a closed period supersession decision operating for a future fixed period of time (i.e., prospectively).

The Upper Tribunal analysed the legal mechanism for making closed period supersession decisions. It set out the relevant mechanism at paragraph 195 of its decision.

The Upper Tribunal decided a closed period supersession decision cannot be made on the ground of relevant change of circumstances, to preserve an existing award of UC or HB where, at the date of the supersession decision, the claimant does not meet a condition of entitlement (for example, being in Great Britain). Nor, in these circumstances, can a closed period supersession be made on the ground it is anticipated a relevant change of circumstances will occur.

The Upper Tribunal confirmed that where a retrospective closed period supersession decision is made about a universal credit award, the fixed period of non-entitlement does not amount to the decision-maker making a nil award of that benefit.

The Upper Tribunal decided it was not an abuse of power for the relevant decision-maker to make the supersession decision in question about SC and about MJ, rather than wait for the claimant to return to Great Britain before making the supersession decision.

The Upper Tribunal decided that the decision made in respect of SC involved material errors of law by the relevant First-tier Tribunal. It remitted the appeal to be heard by a new Tribunal.

The Upper Tribunal decided that the decision made in respect of MJ did not involve material errors of law by the relevant First-tier Tribunal. It dismissed MJ’s appeal.

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 in respect of appeal UA-2024-000177-USTA

(SSWP v SC)

As the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law, it is SET ASIDE under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. and the case is REMITTED to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing by a fresh tribunal.