![[2025] UKUT 259 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
A rule of this kind would necessarily expand the cohort of claimants who may retain
A rule of this kind would necessarily expand the cohort of claimants who may retain
entitlement whilst abroad and introduce potentially significant additional cost. It would do so in circumstances where the Government has taken the view that individuals who choose to travel abroad (including disabled persons) can be expected to have assumed the risk of experiencing a medical emergency whilst travelling and can in principle insure against that risk, including by taking out insurance which provides for medical evacuation.
Such a rule would introduce significant complexity. “Disability” for these purposes would have to be defined and rules or guidance introduced to distinguish between persons who are and are not disabled. Moreover, the rule would have to distinguish between medical conditions suffered abroad which are and are not related to disability. (The Appellant accepts that disabled persons should not be permitted a longer period of disregard if they suffer a medical emergency abroad – e.g. a car accident – unrelated to their disability.)
Any new rule of this kind would insert into the temporary absence scheme a need for decision-makers to consider medical evidence from practitioners treating patients abroad on an emergency basis in order to establish: the existence of a medical condition that prevents travel and the link between the condition and the underlying disability. Not only does this introduce complexity, evidence from overseas practitioners concerning medical conditions experienced overseas is inherently more difficult to verify than UK medical evidence concerning pre-existing conditions. At the same time, ready verification is essential to ensure that the system operates efficiently and fairly, is not abused and that fraudulent claims are denied.
- Heading
- Section 1
- The Statutory Framework
- The Background Facts
- The Decision of the Tribunal
- Ground 1: The Tribunal erred in its treatment of regulation 11(3)(a)(i) of the 2013 Regulations in requiring the need for medical treatment to predate a claimant’s departure from Great Britain
- Ground 1: Interpretation of the 2013 Regulations
- The absence is in connection with the death of a close family member and The Secretary of State considers it unreasonable to expect the claimant to return within one month
- A claimant who does fall within those paragraphs will have retain entitlement in assessment period 2
- The Secretary of State (or the Tribunal) may extend time by up to a further month
- Ground 2: Interference with Convention rights
- Status
- Difference in treatment
- Justification
- This is likely to be a relatively small cohort These are not concerns unique to a need for treatment postdating a claimant’s departure from Great Britain. Decision makers already need to make evaluative judgements on issues of intention to return
- Remedy
- Ground 2A: Discrimination with respect to housing benefit claimants
- Justification
- Why the Upper Tribunal is invited to grant permission: factors other than merits
- Ground 3: the Secretary of State’s concession as to the amount of overpayment
- Ground 3: assessment period beginning 24 February 2023 . The Secretary of State invited the Upper Tribunal to the appeal in part on an additional ground not raised by the Appellant. The Appellant’s ab
- Ground 1: even if the Appellant’s absence from 30 March 2023 to 23 April 2023 was solely in connection with qualifying treatment, that absence cannot be disregarded under regulation 11(3)(a)(i). The n
- Ground 2: the Appellant alleges that the one month rule in regulation 11(1)(b) discriminates indirectly against him Appellant as a disabled person in breach of Article 14 read with A1P1. There is insu
- Temporary absence
- qualifying convalescence: regulation 11(3)(a)(i) and (ii)
- Submissions Regulation 11(1)(b): assessment period beginning 24 February 2023
- Ground 1: interpretation of regulation 11(3)(a)(i)
- Ground 2: regulation 11(1)(b) and Article 14 ECHR
- No evidential basis for finding of indirect discrimination
- Justification
- A rule of this kind would necessarily expand the cohort of claimants who may retain
- Remedy
- Ground 2A: differences in Housing Benefit and UC rules and Article 14 ECHR
- Conclusion
- The Appellant and his wife were not entitled to UC from 24 March 2023 to 23 April 2023
- Analysis
- Ground 2A
- Ground 1
- Ground 2
- Justification
- Remedy
- Conclusions