[2025] UKUT 332 (AAC)

R (IB) 2/04 was the next decision in time after Wood, but it is convenient to set out first what the Tribunal of Commissioners decided in R (IS) 15/04. R (IS) 15/04 concerned a claim for income support, originally decided on 16 February 1998. On 14 March 2002 the claimant applied for a revision of that award. On 12 April 2002 the Secretary of State decided to supersede the award with effect from 28 February 2002, but refused to revise the award. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal but did not deal with the claimant’s argument that the original decision should have been revised for official error on the basis that the claimant had been mis-advised. It was common ground between the parties in that case, and the Tribunal of Commissioners so held, that a decision under section 9 of the SSA 1998 to revise or not revise a decision was not itself appealable under the SSA 1998 and, further, that the provision in regulation 31(2) of the 1999 D&A Regulations extending the time for appealing against the original decision in the case of a revision or refusal to revise did not “in terms” apply in the case of a decision not to revise for official error: ibid at [17]. The area of disagreement between the parties in that case was whether the failure to provide for a right of appeal against a refusal by the Secretary of State to revise on grounds of official error was in breach of Articles 6 and 14 of the ECHR. The Commissioners held it was not: Article 6 compliance was secured by the availability of judicial review of the refusal to revise (see [53]) and the Article 14 argument failed on other grounds that we need not detail.