Forum Home → Discussion → Residence issues → Thread
CoA’s judgment in AT
The Court of Appeal’s judgment in the Secretary of State’s appeal against the UT’s December 2022 decision in Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v AT (Aire Centre and IMA intervening) has just been issued ...
Great result:
‘I would dismiss the appeal on all grounds ...’
Check out the rightsnet WR case law later section later this afternoon for our summary ...
Judgment is here (although I am also keenly awaiting the summary….) - https://cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/Final-Judgment-CA-2023-000085-SSWP-v-AT-08.11.2023.pdf
The SSWP has been refused permission to appeal to Supreme Court by Court of Appeal. If a further permission application to Supreme Court is made (or is being contemplated) then SSWP will presumably continue to stay cases pending the resolution of that (and any further appeal if permission obtained).
Our advice continues to be that SSWP should apply the judgment in any case where not to do so would cause hardship- so the important point is don’t think there is nothing that can be done for clients who need to rely on the judgment.
[ Edited: 8 Nov 2023 at 02:16 pm by Martin Williams ]rightsnet summary of the judgment now published - congrats to CPAG on brilliant outcome -
The EU Rights Hub has also now published a write-up of the new judgment:
Any sign of an application to the SC? I know there’s still a week to go but all the same, I’m gagging to know. As will my Tribunal on 18th of next month.
Any sign of an application to the SC? I know there’s still a week to go but all the same, I’m gagging to know. As will my Tribunal on 18th of next month.
SSWP has filed an application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court today.
Our view is that FTTs should be applying the judgment of the UT (and CA). It would be a rare case where the delay to await the decision on the PTA and any onward appeal would not be very arguably a further breach of a claimants rights- unless the appeal is about a past period only and the claimant is now working for example.
Certainly for any claimant who has ongoing destitution I would almost consider seeking permission to appeal against a stay decision (I think these sort of cases might meet the threshold for seeking permission against a case management decision - ie should arguably not be caught by https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/UTAAC-Guidance-on-Interim-Appeals-October-2020.pdf - the issue of law if fairly hard edged: will the further delay awaiting Supreme Court effectively deprive a claimant of effective remedy in terms of access to their Charter right to dignity. Obviously, would want good evidence of ongoing destitution to have been presented to the FTT first (possibly in an application to vary any direction staying) but if that does not do the trick then a PTA might be worthwhile.
Would happily advise on such a case.
Thanks for the heads up.
Hi,
Can I just check if DWP v AT only relates to UC or is it to all means-tested benefits?
I have a service-user who has her UC claim put on hold awaiting the outcome of AT. A claim was also made for HB (as in temporary homeless accommodation) but this claim was refused saying she has NRPF. I have asked for a review of this decision and asked them to take in to consideration AT v DWP and DWP v AT.
Thanks,
Jim
In a situation where HB won’t cover the rent you might want to consider whether any charge for accommodation under the homelessness legislation is “reasonable”. There was an old Zambrano case involving this point some time ago, which Nearly Legal covered:
https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2014/07/temporary-accommodation-peppercorn-rent/
Quite. Broader issues in the case:
1. There is no immediately obvious reason why AT cannot apply by analogy to other similar tests. The questions around the dignity criterion may or may not be different given that the context differs - UC being an all encompassing benefit, the refusal of which is to leave you destitute where other benefits exist in order to meet a specific need.
2. If your client has made a homelessness application, the LA would need to have assessed their eligibility for assistance which raises substantially the same questions as the habitual residence test for UC/HB. If the LA has concluded that the claimant is eligible for assistance in relation to their homelessness application, then can they rationally conclude that they do not have a right to reside for HB purposes? (Although it is also possible that they are being accommodated under ‘interim’ duties without a decision necessarily having been made about eligibility).
3. If the LA has accepted duties to house the applicant, whether interim or substantive duties, then that accommodation needs to be suitable for occupation. If she is being expected to pay for the accommodation but also denied the means to do so then, as in the case mentioned by Timothy, it seems strongly arguable that the accommodation duty is not being met.
4. If the client is making a claim for UC anyway which has been stayed, then why isn’t the approach to seek to have the stay of the UC decision lifted, rather than appealing the HB decision which only deals with part of the problem?
Thanks both of you.
I have asked for the UC stay to be lifted and asked HB to review their decision. Not seen service-user for several weeks to check if UC is in payment or not but will be chasing this up. Thanks again.
Jim
Any sign of an application to the SC? I know there’s still a week to go but all the same, I’m gagging to know. As will my Tribunal on 18th of next month.
Certainly for any claimant who has ongoing destitution I would almost consider seeking permission to appeal against a stay decision (I think these sort of cases might meet the threshold for seeking permission against a case management decision - ie should arguably not be caught by https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/UTAAC-Guidance-on-Interim-Appeals-October-2020.pdf - the issue of law if fairly hard edged: will the further delay awaiting Supreme Court effectively deprive a claimant of effective remedy in terms of access to their Charter right to dignity. Obviously, would want good evidence of ongoing destitution to have been presented to the FTT first (possibly in an application to vary any direction staying) but if that does not do the trick then a PTA might be worthwhile.
Would happily advise on such a case.
Has anyone had any success overcoming a decision to stay?
Somewhat depressed that there are not lots of advisers responding to Liam’s question with examples….
CPAG are aware of some cases where DWP have applied the AT judgment and paid.
We are also happy to advise advisers on this issue.
Martin
Has anyone had any success overcoming a decision to stay?
Somewhat depressed that there are not lots of advisers responding to Liam’s question with examples….
I could have done, but I think there were specific factors in my case (i.e. there were two other entirely separate grounds of appeal and AT breach of Charter rights wasn’t the main ground) that meant DWP never made an application to stay. So not really sure how helpful any input from me would be…...
Supreme Court refused permission to appeal in this case yesterday. So the judgment is now final and must be applied.
We are just updating our resources etc.
Has anyone had any success overcoming a decision to stay?
Somewhat depressed that there are not lots of advisers responding to Liam’s question with examples….
I could have done, but I think there were specific factors in my case (i.e. there were two other entirely separate grounds of appeal and AT breach of Charter rights wasn’t the main ground) that meant DWP never made an application to stay. So not really sure how helpful any input from me would be…...
Up here the wizards at GMIAU are pretty good at securing S17 support and that’s in turn assisted my remaining claimants to find work; I couldn’t credibly make the hardship arguments.