![[2025] UKUT 259 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
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: 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 2: In the alternative, the Tribunal was required to give regulation 11 a Convention-compliant interpretation on the basis that it otherwise unlawfully interfered with the Appellant’s Article 14 ECHR rights, taken with Article 1 of the First Protocol to, the European Convention on Human Rights (he no longer relies on Article 8).
Further to his Reply, the Appellant sought permission to add a ground 2A, which is an alternative Article 14 discrimination argument based on an alleged difference in treatment with housing benefit claimants in respect of the housing cost element:
The Tribunal was required to give regulation 11 a Convention-compliant interpretation on the basis that the rules treat him less favourably, for no good reason, than either: (1) a person in exempt, rather than settled, accommodation, or (2) a person who has attained the qualifying age for State Pension Credit (or as a member of a couple, of whom both members have reached that age)
Ground 3: the Secretary of State fairly identified an alternative basis for part-allowing the appeal: it is clear under AM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(UC) [2024] UKUT 137 (AAC) has the effect that, should the other grounds fail, the Appellant’s award was to be superseded and disallowed from 24 March 2023, not 24 February 2023, reducing the amount of (recoverable) overpayment to £1,880.
- 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