![[2025] UKUT 259 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Section 1
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) dated 1 November 2023 under file reference SC242/23/05918 contains an error on a point of law. The appeal is allowed and the decision of the Tribunal is remade. The Appellant’s award of universal credit is superseded from 24 March 2023. The Appellant is refused permission to amend his grounds of appeal to include Ground 2A. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
This decision is made under section 12(2)(b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
REASONS
Introduction
The issues in this appeal are (1) the proper interpretation of regulation 11(3)(a)(i) of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (“the 2013 Regulations”) and (2) whether the rules governing temporary absence abroad from Great Britain for medical treatment comply with Article 14, read in conjunction with Article 1 to the First Protocol (“A1P1”), of the European Convention on Human Rights. More particularly, can a period of absence abroad be split into multiple phases, such that a universal credit (“UC”) claimant who suffers a medical emergency after departure can have his continued absence from Great Britain disregarded under the medical treatment provisions, either under regulation 11 of the 2013 Regulations or, if necessary, in order to achieve a Convention-compliant reading of that regulation?
- 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