Category: Benefits

Otobo, Regina (on The Application of) v Slough Borough Council: Admn 12 Jan 2011

Renewed application by Mr Otobo for permission to apply for judicial review. He had been called in for a voluntary interview by the council investigating whether any offence might have been committed in his claiming of housing benefit. Though warned that it would be held under PACE, and that he would be allowed a solcitor, they refused his request for advance disclosure of materials showing why he had been called in for interview. He said that this refusal infringed his article 6 rights.
Held: Leave to bring review was refused. HHJ Anthony Thornton QC had correctly set out in detail the reasons why there was no right to disclosure at this stage. He had pointed out that the defendant council was undertaking an investigation as a prelude to deciding whether or not to prosecute the claimant. He noted that the defendant has no right to insist that the claimant attends for interview, and the defendant is not required in law to give prior notification of the basis of the suspicion. Equally, the defendant could proceed with this investigation and, if it considered it appropriate, prosecute the claimant, even if he has refused to be interviewed. The judge concluded that, if the defendant decides to prosecute the claim, the content of his interview may only be adduced in evidence if the interview is carried out under caution and subject to PACE. The judge further notes that Article 6 was not applicable as the interview was not at that stage part of any trial or legal proceedings, since no trial or legal proceedings had been begun. He considered that the proposed procedure was, in any event, fair and beyond reproach, and included an ability of the investigative officer to provide disclosure if he or she thought fit. The claimant could have a lawyer present during the interview.

Judges:

Clive Lewis QC

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2154 (Admin), [2011] RVR 282

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Benefits, Human Rights

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459707

Petersen v Arbeitsmarktservice Niederosterreich: ECJ 11 Sep 2008

ECJ Social security Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 Article 4(1)(b) and (g), Article 10(1) and Article 69 Freedom of movement for persons Articles 39 EC and 42 EC Statutory pension and accident insurance scheme Benefit for reduced capacity to work or incapacity to work Advance payment to unemployed persons who apply for the grant of a benefit Whether the benefit is an ‘unemployment benefit’ or an ‘invalidity benefit’ Residence qualification

Judges:

Rosas P

Citations:

[2008] EUECJ C-228/07, C-228/07, [2009] 1 CMLR 2

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Petersen v Arbeitsmarktservice Niederosterreich ECJ 15-May-2008
ECJ (Opinion) Unemployment benefits and disability Union citizenship Scope of Articles 17 EC, 18 EC and 39 EC Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 Conditions for granting of an advance on the disability benefit an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459609

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Nelligan: CA 15 Apr 2003

The claimant qualified potentially for a pension based upon her own Class B contributions, or a category A pension. The Class B pension and requested that it be backdated.
Held: She could claim one pension but not both. The pension entitlement under the 1992 Act was dependent upon a claim being made. She could not backdate her claim. A construction of section 43 to allow this could not have been intended by Parliament. The section imposed no duty to backdate and no duty to advise her of the possibility.

Judges:

Kennedy, Scott Baker LJJ Blackburne J

Citations:

Times 23-Apr-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 555, Gazette 03-Jul-2003, [2004] 1 WLR 894

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Administration Act 1992 1(1), Social Security Contribution and Benefits Act 1992 43(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Administrative

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.181037

Cockburn v Chief Adjudication Officer: CA 30 Jul 1996

The extra and frequent attention to laundry for the incontinence of a claimant does not of itself warrant the provision of Attendance Allowance.

Citations:

Times 30-Jul-1996

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 64(2)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Cockburn v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another and Secretary of State for Social Services v Fairey HL 21-May-1997
The provision of an interpreter for a deaf person was included in range of care needed for attendance for Disability Living Allowance. Dealing with his soiled laundry was not so included: ‘In my opinion it is not enough to ask whether the act in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.79255

Longdon v British Coal Corporation: CA 9 Mar 1995

A pension paid on incapacity as an alternative to retirement was not deductible from damages payable later for negligence. There was no double recovery.

Citations:

Times 14-Apr-1995, Gazette 12-Apr-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Personal Injury, Damages, Benefits

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.83185

Bate v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another: CA 2 Dec 1994

A disabled adult living with her parents was still entitled to receive the severe disability premium.

Citations:

Times 12-Dec-1994, Independent 02-Dec-1994

Statutes:

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Bate v Chief Adjudication Officer HL 17-May-1996
Severe disability premium not available to adult claimant residing with parents. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Bate v Chief Adjudication Officer HL 17-May-1996
Severe disability premium not available to adult claimant residing with parents. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.78283

Regina v Chesterfield Borough Council Ex Parte Fullwood: CA 15 Jun 1993

A non-dependant joint occupier can be taken into account when a claimant applies for housing benefit, even though they were not themselves liable for the rent.

Citations:

Ind Summary 05-Jul-1993, Times 15-Jun-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Judicial Review

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.86347

DD v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (II): UTAA 2 Nov 2020

Claimant with existing award of industrial injuries disablement benefit (IIDB) for other Prescribed Diseases made new application to reinstate award for Prescribed Disease D5 dermatitis – decision-based system of social security decision-making – whether new claim or application for a supersession on basis of change of circumstances – date from which new aggregated re-assessment takes effect – CI/420/1994 and ED v SSWP [2009] UKUT 206 (AAC) considered – deduction of overpayment of state pension credit from arrears of IIDB due following aggregated re-assessment – Social Security Administration Act 1992 s.74 – whether IIDB a prescribed benefit for the purposes of reg.15 of the Social Security (POA, Overpayments and Recovery) Regs 1988 – principle of continuity of the law in section 2 of the Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1992.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 302 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.659516

CRPNPAC (Judgment): ECJ 2 Apr 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Migrant workers – Social security – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Applicable legislation – Article 14, point 1, sub (a) – Posted workers – Article 14, point 2, sub (a), i) – Person normally exercising a salaried activity in the territory of two or more Member States and occupied by a branch or a permanent representation that the company has in the territory of a Member State other than that in which it has its registered office – Regulation (EEC) n – 574/72 – Article 11 (1) (a) – Article 12a (1a) – E 101 certificate – Binding effect – Certificate obtained or invoked fraudulently – Jurisdiction of the court of the host Member State to ascertain the fraud and reject the certificate – Article 84a (3),of Regulation No 1408/71 – Cooperation between competent institutions – Authority of res judicata in criminal matters over civil matters – Primacy of Union law

Citations:

C-370/17, [2020] EUECJ C-370/17, ECLI:EU:C:2020:260

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment, Benefits

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.660112

Bouygues Travaux Publics and Others (Migrant Workers – Social Security – Judgment): ECJ 14 May 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Migrant workers – Social security – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Legislation applicable – Article 14(1)(a) and (2)(b) – Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Article 12(1) – Article 13(1)(a) – Posted workers – Workers employed in two or more Member States – Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 – Article 11(1)(a) – Article 12a(2)(a) and(4)(a) – Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 – Article 19(2) – E 101 and A 1 Certificates – Binding effect – Consequences – Social security – Employment law

Citations:

C-17/19, [2020] EUECJ C-17/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:379

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits, Employment

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.660175

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v JM and Liverpool City Council (HB): UTAA 15 Apr 2020

Regulation B13 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 – is a spare room a bedroom? – yes – dimensions of the room – full size adult bed fits – door partially opens – safety on evacuation – appeal allowed and decision remade – reduction of Housing Benefit entitlement by 14% – consideration of SSWP v Hockley and SSWP v Nelson.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 337 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.659503

Gentle and Another, Regina (on the application of) v Prime Minister and Others: CA 12 Dec 2006

Application for judicial review of the refusal by the government to hold an independent inquiry into the circumstances which led to the invasion of Iraq.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1689, [2007] HRLR 10, [2007] QB 689, [2007] 2 WLR 195

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Child Support

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.247352

Burnip v Birmingham City Council and Another: CA 15 May 2012

The court considered an allegation of discrimination in the application of housing benefit for a disabled person.
Held: The claimants had established a prima facie case of discrimination under Article 14 of the ECHR, and that the Secretary of State had failed to establish objective and reasonable justification for the discriminatory effect of the statutory criteria Although the court was able to arrive at its decision on other grounds, Maurice Kay LJ would have relied if necessary on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to resolve any uncertainty over ‘the meaning of article 14 discrimination’ in the circumstances of the case

Judges:

Maurice Kay, Hooper, Henderson LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 629, [2013] PTSR 117, [2012] LGR 954

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 14, Housing Benefit Regulations 2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – SG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 18-Mar-2015
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings . .
Cited – SG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 18-Mar-2015
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings . .
Cited – MA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 9-Nov-2016
The appellants claimed housing benefit. They appealed against rejection of their claims that the imposition of limits to the maximum sums payable, ‘the bedroom tax’, was unlawful on equality grounds. The claimants either had disabilities, or lived . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Benefits

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.457696

Gemeente Steenbergen v Baten: ECJ 14 Nov 2002

(Judgment) Brussels Convention – Scope – Action under a right of recourse under national legislation providing for payment of allowances by way of social assistance – Concept of ‘civil matters’ – Concept of ‘social security’

Citations:

C-271/00, [2002] EUECJ C-271/00, [2003] 1 WLR 1996, ECLI:EU:C:2002:656

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.178338

Brown v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 14 Feb 2007

The claimant had received an overpayment of disability living allowance. That benefit had been suspended on discovery of the mistake. When he began to be entitled again after a re-determination, the Secretary of State treated the original overpayment a a payment on account.
Held: The claimant’s appeal succeeded. To deal with the matter in the way chosen by the respondent would lead to arbitrary results without any logic.

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 89, Times 04-Apr-2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.248805

Jones v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 10 Jul 2003

The claimant had spent some twelve thousand pounds on a car. She now appealed a refusal of benefit based upon the suggestion that she had deliberately reduced her capital to make herself eligible. She had sold land, but the proceeds had been used to repay debts. For one debt, a friend proposed that they purchase the car to be held as security for the debt.
Held: The tribunal had accepted that before the sale, the creditor friend had been pressing for repayment, and that in practice the car belonged to the friend. The court was ‘not presently persuaded that a debtor who repays a debt repayable on demand but which has not in fact been demanded, e.g. a bank overdraft, must by virtue of Regulation 51 necessarily be treated as possessing that sum as capital. ‘ Even if the debt is not immediately repayable, the repayment of it by a debtor will not necessarily have been made for the forbidden purpose. It is a question of fact. Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Dyson Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Schiemann

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 964

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – R(SB) 12/91 SSAT 1991
The Tribunal sought to construe the phrase ‘an immediately repayable debt’ for Income Support purposes : ‘A person has to pay his debts. He has no choice in the matter and if he has no choice, then any divesting of capital resources in pursuance of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.184776

Martinez Vidal v Gemeenschappelijke Medische Dienst: ECJ 27 Jun 1991

Social security for migrant workers – Invalidity insurance – Person in receipt of benefits residing in a Member State other than the competent State – Medical examinations – Requirement that the recipient travel to the territory of the competent Member State at the request of the institution responsible for payment – Conditions – Journey not harmful to the health of recipient and expenses paid – Unfitness to travel certified by the institution of the place of stay – Verification on the spot of unfitness to travel by the institution responsible for payment – Permissibility
(Council Regulation No 574/72, Article 51(1))
Where an institution responsible for payment of an invalidity benefit exercises the power provided for in Article 51(1) of Regulation No 574/72 of having a recipient of the benefit residing in another Member State examined by a doctor of its own choice, the person concerned may be required to go to the Member State in which the competent institution is situated, provided that the travel and accommodation expenses thereby incurred are borne by the competent institution and the person concerned is fit enough to make the journey without impairment of his health.
Where the institution of the place where the person concerning is staying or residing has determined that that person is not fit enought to undertake the journey, there is nothing to prevent the institution responsible for payment or the body responsible for medical examinations from verifying that circumstance on the spot.

Citations:

[1991] ECR I-3245, C-344/89, [1991] EUECJ C-344/89

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Benefits

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.160369

ED v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: UTAA 15 Dec 2020

The appellant had – in a fictitious identity that was not that of another, real, person – claimed and been granted asylum, indefinite leave to remain and British citizenship. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions accepted that the appellant was not ‘a person subject to immigration control’ within the meaning of section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and that the appellant was not therefore, by section 115(1) and (3) of that act, disentitled to benefits. This acceptance was given in view of (i) the concession in R (Kaziu, Hysaj and Bakijasi) v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 1195, [2016] 1 WLR 673, and (ii) R (Hysaj and Bakijasi) v SSHD [2017] UKSC 82, [2018] 1 WLR 221. But the Jobseeker’s Allowance (IB), Income Support and Employment and Support Allowance (IR) awards were nonetheless lawfully reversed, not because the appellant was ‘a person subject to immigration control’ – which she wasn’t – but because the benefits claims did not satisfy the requirements of section 1 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 352 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.659529

M and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Revenue and Customs and others: CA 6 Mar 2007

The applicants complained that though none of them was suspected of terrorist activity, their finances had been restricted because of their family connections with Osama Bin Laden.

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ, Wilson LJ, Sir Peter Gibson

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 173

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – M and others v HM Treasury Admn 22-Sep-2006
The claimants sought payment of benefits. They would otherwise have been entitled, and were not suspected themselves, but were family members of persons listed as suspected terrorists under the Resolution, and had been denied benefits acordingly. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – M, Regina (on the Application of) v Her Majestys Treasury HL 30-Apr-2008
The House referred to the ECJ a question about the implementation of UN resolutions imposing sanctions on Al-Qa’ida. . .
At Court of Appeal – M (FC) and Others v Her Majesty’s Treasury (Common Foreign And Security Policy) ECJ 14-Jan-2010
Europa Restrictive measures directed against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban Prohibition of making funds available for the benefit of persons and . .
At Court of Appeal – M (FC) and Others (Common Foreign And Security Policy) ECJ 29-Apr-2010
Control of Funds of Terrorist Associates
ECJ Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban – Freezing of funds and economic resources – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Benefits

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.250584

Chief Adjudication Officer and Secretary of State for Social Security v Webber: CA 1 Jul 1997

A student moving from a full time to a part time basis within his course is not to be debarred from claiming benefits on the change of status.

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-1997, Gazette 16-Jul-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1998

Statutes:

Social Security and Benefits Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.142395

MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (II): UTAA 22 Oct 2020

Disablement benefit claimed in respect of several prescribed industrial diseases caused by chemical agents – whether Secretary of State entitled to issue a separate decision in respect of each prescribed disease – inquisitorial role of Secretary of State and First-tier Tribunal in relation to the question whether the disease was due to the nature of the claimant’s employment.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 297 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.659512

The Secretary of State for The Department of Work and Pensions v GB (IS): UTAA 26 Feb 2020

Income Support – Social Fund Funeral Payment -entitlement to funeral payment from social fund where insurance policy payments due on the death of the claimant’s late husband must be deducted – interpretation of Regulation 10 of the Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Regulations 2005 – application of PA v SSWP.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 316 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.659502

CT v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: UTAA 6 Jan 2021

Recoverable overpayment of income-related Employment and Support Allowance following failure to disclose receipt of occupational pension – Civil penalty imposed under section 115D Social Security Administration Act 1992 -whether ‘reasonable excuse’ for failure to disclose and scope of discretion – VT v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SSWP) [2016] UKUT 178 (AAC); [2016] AACR 42 considered.

Citations:

[2021] UKUT 6 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.659495

XTC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DLA): UTAA 3 Dec 2020

Disability Living Allowance – Severe Behavioural Problems – section 73(3) Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and regulation 12(6) of Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991 – meaning of ‘extreme’; meaning of ‘regularly’, guidance on proper approach to regulation 12(6).

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 342 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.659539

KG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC): UTAA 6 Nov 2020

Universal credit – Failure to attend and participate in Jobcentre telephone interview – Whether nature of requirement and consequences for non-compliance properly notified to claimant – Whether good cause for failing to attend – JB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC) [2018] UKUT 360 (AAC) applied.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 307 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.659520

The Commissioners for Her Majestys Revenue and Customs v AD: UTAA 10 Dec 2020

Whether having a Zambrano right could assist for purposes of child benefit scheme – effect of regulation 23(4)(b)(i) of Child Benefit (General) Regulations 2006 in 2018 still referring to provisions of the by then revoked Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 – whether regulation 23(4)(b)(i) therefore misfired or was `cured’ by Schedule 7 to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 – whether need for a judicial determination (and notification of the same) where application for permission to appeal is not admitted under rule 38(7)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 353 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Immigration

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.659526

CP v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC): UTAA 10 Nov 2020

Application of regulation 26(3)(aa) of the Universal Credit etc (Claims and Payment) Regulations 2013 to housing benefit.
Comments on duty of Secretary of State to provide resources for submission writers to apply Kerr v Department for Social Development.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 309 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.659515

SE v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: UTAA 5 Jan 2020

The decision examines the definition of ‘basic written information’ in the context of the various descriptors governing activity 8, including what is meant by ‘signs’, the relevance of ‘dates’ and their respective interaction with ‘words’ in descriptor 8(e); what is meant by ‘standard size text’; and the relationship between descriptors 8(d) and (e). As regards activity 10, it examines the definitions of ‘simple budgeting decision’ and ‘complex budgeting decision’, noting that the requirements within each definition are cumulative; and that each definition requires the capacity for a ‘decision’ to be considered. It also examines the relationship between descriptors 10(c) and 10(d).

Citations:

[2021] UKUT 1 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.659493

McGrath v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 20 Apr 2012

The claimant challenged the decision of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to recover from her an overpayment of income support in 1996 and 1997 by way of the deduction from current payments to her of employment and support allowance, saying that the continued recovery of the overpayment in this way breached her right in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’ or ‘the Convention’) to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1042 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Benefits

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452834

CG/4494/99: SSAT 1999

Citations:

Unreported 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Affirmed – R(SB) 15/87 SSAT 1986
‘It is well settled that responsibility for keeping the Department informed of any change in a claimant’s circumstances rests and remains upon the claimant . .’ and ‘. . To whom is there this obligation to disclose? We are concerned here with . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hinchy v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 3-Mar-2005
The applicant had been dependent upon income support, and had then come to receive Disability Living Allowance (DLA). She therefore received additional income support, but the office did not adjust that benefit down when her DLA stopped. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.223210

LG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP): UTAA 2 Dec 2020

Guidance given about the approach First-tier Tribunals should take in the case of a claimant who has a history of having undertaken some walking at airports when travelling to and from the United Kingdom in the context of the higher rate of the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance, is also relevant to possible satisfaction of the descriptors linked to Personal Independence Payment mobility activity 2.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 343 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.659533