[2025] UKUT 299 (AAC)

By the time the request to hear the appeals together had been made, the SSWP’s appeal against SC had already been listed for a hearing before me on 25 February 2025. The GLD’s letter dated 06 February 2025 acknowledged that hearing the two appeals together would mean adjourning the hearing of the appeal about SC. The GLD made arguments about the importance of hearing both appeals together to ensure a common approach to the issue by the Upper Tribunal.

The GLD accepted that adjourning the appeal against SC was problematic for SC and was not a step to be taken lightly but requested that both appeals be listed as soon as possible. MJ was without any income-replacement benefit due to not having claimed UC after losing her HB. The GLD’s letter asked if the Upper Tribunal could accommodate a hearing of both appeals in March or April 2025, to avoid causing too much delay for SC and to prioritise the hearing of MJ’s appeal.

On 12 February 2025, I made case management directions for SC’s mother and representative, Mrs LP, (“LP”) to have until 4pm on 18 February 2025 to make representations about the GLD’s request. This was because LP had emailed the Upper Tribunal on 07 February 2025, asking if she could make representations about GLD’s request. She had not received any response from the Upper Tribunal Office.

LP made representations on 18 February 2025, which I read and took into account. On 18 February 2025, I made directions vacating the hearing of the appeal involving SC on 25 February 2025. I also directed for the two appeals to be heard together, and for the parties to provide dates of availability for a hearing in March, April, or May 2025.

I heard both appeals on 17 April 2025, in person, at the Upper Tribunal’s London venue. SC was represented by her mother Mrs LP (“LP”). MJ was represented by Mr Martin Williams of the Child Poverty Action Group (“CPAG”). The SSWP was represented in both appeals by Counsel, Mr Richard Howell. MJ observed the hearing by video.

LB Bromley did not take part in the hearing, although I was informed late on during the hearing that an observer from the local authority was present at the back of the hearing room. In the circumstances and applying rules 2 and 38 of the UT Rules 2008, I was satisfied LB Bromley had been notified of the hearing or reasonable steps had been taken to notify it of the hearing, and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed. LB Bromley had not responded to the Upper Tribunal’s grant of permission to appeal or to subsequent requests to provide a response. LB Bromley had not taken part in the hearing before the FTT either. The other parties were ready and willing to proceed on 17 April 2025, and the hearing of MJ’s appeal was arranged on a relatively urgent basis due to her financial circumstances. It was in the interests of justice to proceed without LB Bromley participating in the hearing.

I was grateful to all the representatives for their clear, thoughtful, and constructive submissions. I particularly thank Mr Williams, who was not representing SC at the hearing. At my request, Mr Williams timed his response to Mr Howell’s arguments about SC’s position, to allow LP to hear what Mr Williams had to say before making her own submissions.

I also wish to recognise, and thank, SC and MJ, for taking part in the hearing to the full extent that they felt able to do so. They each experience difficult and enduring mental health conditions. MJ took part in the way that felt most comfortable to her. This was to observe the hearing remotely by video, and to have her camera switched off during the hearing. She was represented fully by Mr Williams and, having checked with him, I was satisfied that trying to address MJ directly would be unhelpful to her. I therefore acknowledged her participation via Mr Williams.

It was clear that SC found it stressful and distressing being present in the hearing room. She spoke at the end of the hearing, and what she had to say was clear and advocated for herself. I found her observations, and LP’s representations about the impact of the SSWP’s decision, to be powerful. It is important that when deciding complex issues of law, the Upper Tribunal is aware that what is decided also has a real impact on individual claimants.

I made some adjustments at the hearing to help SC to feel able to participate. These included where she wanted to sit in the hearing and whether she wanted to address me (or not). I encouraged SC to feel she could come and go during the hearing in whichever way worked effectively for her. She remained present throughout.

The appeals were listed before me on the basis that MJ’s position was urgent because she had no access to any income-related benefit. However, at the hearing, Mr Williams confirmed MJ’s circumstances had changed and she was no longer needing to claim income-related benefit. Mr Williams confirmed the appeal was no longer urgent.

I apologise to the parties that it has taken longer than I had hoped to produce these decisions. This is because it has taken time to consider all the arguments, a substantial amount of legislation, and to explore the wide range of case law produced by the parties. More time was needed to undertake the comprehensive analysis the decisions required. I also apologise to the parties and their representatives for the overall length of the decisions and reasons.