The Statutory Framework
The Statutory Framework
The Welfare Reform Act 2012 (“the 2012 Act”) sets out the basic conditions for entitlement to UC and provides that
“Basic conditions
(1) For the purposes of section 3, a person meets the basic conditions who—
(a) is at least 18 years old,
(b) has not reached the qualifying age for state pension credit,
(c) is in Great Britain,
(d) is not receiving education, and
(e) has accepted a claimant commitment.
...
(5) For the basic condition in subsection (1)(c) regulations may—
(a) specify circumstances in which a person is to be treated as being or not being in Great Britain;
(b) specify circumstances in which temporary absence from Great Britain is disregarded;
(c) modify the application of this Part in relation to a person not in Great Britain who is by virtue of paragraph (b) entitled to universal credit”.
Regulation 11 of the 2013 Regulations (in the form in which it existed at the date of decision in this case) then provides (with emphasis added) that
“Temporary absence from Great Britain
11(1) A person's temporary absence from Great Britain is disregarded in determining whether they meet the basic condition to be in Great Britain if—
(a) the person is entitled to universal credit immediately before the beginning of the period of temporary absence; and
(b) either—
(i) the absence is not expected to exceed, and does not exceed, one month, or
(ii) paragraph (3) or (4) applies.
(2) The period of one month in paragraph (1)(b) may be extended by up to a further month if the temporary absence is in connection with the death of—
(a) the person's partner or a child or qualifying young person for whom the person was responsible; or
(b) a close relative of the person, or of their partner or of a child or qualifying young person for whom the person or their partner was responsible,
and the Secretary of State considers that it would be unreasonable to expect the person to return to Great Britain within the first month.
(3) This paragraph applies where the absence is not expected to exceed, and does not exceed, 6 months and is solely in connection with—
(a) the person undergoing—
(i) treatment for an illness or physical or mental impairment by, or under the supervision of, a qualified practitioner, or
(ii) medically approved convalescence or care as a result of treatment for an illness or physical or mental impairment, where the person had that illness or impairment before leaving Great Britain; or
(b) the person accompanying their partner or a child or qualifying young person for whom they are responsible for treatment or convalescence or care as mentioned in sub-paragraph (a).
(4) This paragraph applies where the absence is not expected to exceed, and does not exceed, 6 months and the person is
(a) a mariner; or
(b) a continental shelf worker who is in a designated area or a prescribed area.
(5) In the regulation
...
“medically approved” means certified by a registered medical practitioner;
...
“qualified practitioner” means a person qualified to provide medical treatment, physiotherapy or a form of treatment which is similar to, or related to, either of those forms of treatment”.
- 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
![[2025] UKUT 259 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)