× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit migration  →  Thread

Stop notices and withdrawn UC claims

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

HMRC v AB [2021] UKUT 209 (AAC)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61b32ab0d3bf7f0551f2d426/CTC_2193_2019-01.pdf

An interesting case which confirms the point that if a UC claim is made but withdrawn before the DWP issue a stop notice, entitlement to existing legacy benefits continues.

The appellant had an ongoing award of tax credits. The FtT found* that the following events occurred:
-On 6 October 2018, she made a claim to UC.
-On 7 October 2018, she withdrew that claim due to advice from the CAB
-On 9 October 2018, UC issued a ‘stop notice’ under reg 8 of the UC (TP) Regs instructing HMRC to terminate tax credit entitlement after 5 October 2018 due to the UC claim.

HMRC complied with the stop notice and terminated the tax credits award. The appellant appealed arguing that the stop notice was ineffective and her tax credits should have continued. The FtT agreed. HMRC appealed to the UT.

The UT accepted that the stop notice was ineffective. Reg 8 only allows a stop notice to be issued in circumstances where a claim for UC had been made and where it had been determined that the basic conditions of entitlement were satisfied. That required a formal determination, even in a clear case (para 20). Moreover, that determination needed to be made in the context of a live claim, rather than one which had been withdrawn (para 31). On the facts found, there was no live claim for UC when the stop notice was issued so it was ineffective to end the appellant’s tax credits.

It also seems to be inherent in the reasoning in this case that a claimant is entitled to challenge a decision to terminate their tax credits (or housing benefit) following the issuing of a stop notice on the grounds that the DWP-issued notice itself was invalid or procedurally deficient. HMRC do not appear to have even made the argument that they were required or entitled simply to take the notice at face value.

HMRC v LH [2018] UKUT 306 (AAC) could be distinguished because in that case the claimant had critically withdrawn their UC claim after the stop notice was issued.

*Perhaps a more inquisitive FtT might have asked how exactly it came to be that she made a UC claim on Saturday 6 October 2018 and then withdrew it on Sunday 7 October 2018 having received advice from the CAB at some point in between those two events, but apparently the FtT accepted that this was the case and HMRC did not challenge those findings.

Stainsby
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Plumstead Community Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 613

Joined: 17 June 2010

I represented in a case that was not on all fours with this but has some interesting parallels

My client ( a Polish national) was getting ESA and was bullied by a DWP “advisor” to claim UC after she failed the WCA

She claimed UC on 21 /11/2018
The stop notice was issued on 28/11/2018
UC determined that she failed their HRT on 7/12/2018 and refused the UC claim

HMRC terminated my clients child tax credit wef 21/11/2018 although child tax credit was subsequently re- awarded from 04/01/2019 on a fresh claim because of the SDP gateway.
 
HMRC relied on LH in all their submissions to the FtT,. They sent two presenting officers to the Tribunal which heard the case on 18/11/2019.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal because UC had determined that my client did not meet the basic condtions as the was held to be not in Great Britain.

The PO’s who presented their case at the Tribunal could not get their heads around the not in GB determination and twice asked me whether my client lived in the UK.

HMRC asked for a statment of reasons and subsequently applied for leave to appeal to the UT.  The FtT refused the application and HMRC did not make a renewed application

Seems like HMRC thought they had a stronger case with AB but evidently they thought wrong

chacha
forum member

Benefits dept - Hertsmere Borough Council

Send message

Total Posts: 472

Joined: 13 December 2010

Elliot Kent - 10 December 2021 10:37 PM

*Perhaps a more inquisitive FtT might have asked how exactly it came to be that she made a UC claim on Saturday 6 October 2018 and then withdrew it on Sunday 7 October 2018 having received advice from the CAB at some point in between those two events, but apparently the FtT accepted that this was the case and HMRC did not challenge those findings.


Interesting, as the UT judge also expressed a view on fact finding, but still…..... it is sound reasoning and in my opinion, exactly the correct decision.

Stainsby - 14 December 2021 11:52 AM

The PO’s who presented their case at the Tribunal could not get their heads around the not in GB determination and twice asked me whether my client lived in the UK.

  Don’t know whether to laugh or cry!!

Stainsby - 14 December 2021 11:52 AM

Seems like HMRC thought they had a stronger case with AB but evidently they thought wrong

Very wrong.

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

So now to muddy the waters, Judge Jacobs has issued decisions in these two cases:

JL v Calderdale MBC & SSWP [2022] UKUT 9 (AAC)
https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/jl-v-calderdale-metropolitan-borough-council-and-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-uc-2022-ukut-9-aac

SK v HMRC & SSWP [2022] UKUT 10 (AAC)
https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/sk-v-commissioners-for-her-majestys-revenue-and-customs-and-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-uc-2022-ukut-10-aac

In the JL case, he reaches the opposite conclusion to Judge Mitchell. Withdrawal of a UC claim does not have the effect of preventing a stop notice being validly issued.

In the SK case, he reaches the conclusion that a stop notice can be validly issued where there is an appearance of entitlement to UC even if the claimant is subsequently determined not to meet the basic conditions of entitlement (for instance) due to not having a right to reside.

I expect I will have some more to say about these once I have had time to digest.

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1411

Joined: 27 February 2019

This case may be of interest to readers of this thread.

File Attachments

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

Paras 39 and 52 slightly at odds with what Judge Jacobs has said about being present in GB maybe?

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1411

Joined: 27 February 2019

Yes. To put it more generally, Judge Poynter seems to be saying that for the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the basic conditions of entitlement are met, she must be satisfied that they are met properly and not just superficially, as Judge Jacobs argues.

Dan Manville
forum member

Greater Manchester Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 458

Joined: 22 January 2020

Charles - 16 February 2022 10:33 PM

Yes. To put it more generally, Judge Poynter seems to be saying that for the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the basic conditions of entitlement are met, she must be satisfied that they are met properly and not just superficially, as Judge Jacobs argues.

Back in the days of yore, the Court of Appeal rejected a construction very similar to that assumed in SK by Judge Jacobs in Abdirahman the first R2R case that got to the senior courts. I remember it well cuz one of the appellants was a client of a colleague.

Excuse my not digging it out but I’m on hold with my non tyipng hand.

Mike Haran
forum member

Caseworker, Richmond CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 29

Joined: 8 April 2016

Does anyone know if SK is going to the Court of Appeal?

Does anyone know of any stop notice cases relating to the Right to Reside
awaiting hearing in the Upper Tribunal?

Thanks

Timothy Seaside
forum member

Housing services - Arun District Council

Send message

Total Posts: 539

Joined: 20 September 2018

Approaching this from the opposite direction, and leading on from the Amendment Regs which took effect on 25 July 2022…

My clients became a MAC in September. Previously IR-ESA Support Group, HB and Carers. They got a letter from the Pension Service in May about his pension, so they called the number and spoke to somebody. Apparently pension service advised they should apply for UC in July. So on about 15 July they got a friend to help them complete the online application. The only bit they weren’t able to complete online was the ID check, so they booked an appointment at the local JCP.

They attended the ID interview at JCP on 25 July with all necessary paperwork. At that appointment they were told they would be better off staying on legacy benefits so they agreed to withdraw the claim.

Legacy benefits then continued until the day before his birthday. They claimed UC on his birthday. And now they have been told they have to wait three months before the LCWRA element can start.

My argument is that since the changes to Reg 8 of the UC (TP) Regs there has been no way for legacy benefits to continue after a claim has been made - even if subsequently withdrawn. Even before 25 July I don’t think they could really argue that they weren’t satisfied that the basic conditions were met.

I’m dealing with relatively recent changes to the legislation, so have I missed something?

Edit: Okay, so one thing I’ve missed is that I don’t just want the legacy benefits to stop and get the run on. I also want the claim not to have been withdrawn. Is there any argument that the UC claim shouldn’t have been allowed to be withdrawn (other than just a complaint about bad advice)?

[ Edited: 15 Nov 2022 at 02:30 pm by Timothy Seaside ]
Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3196

Joined: 7 January 2016

So the advice from Pension Service about needing to claim UC ahead of reaching SPA was correct but the subsequent advice from the JCP work coach was incorrect and they shouldn’t have withdrawn the UC claim at that point?

It’s a strange one for sure. However, I can’t see how appealing that ESA and HB shouldn’t have remained in payment necessarily assists with trying to resurrect the withdrawn UC claim. They did do this, albeit on bad advice, but I can’t see an obvious way to appeal that - surely you’d be looking at complaints and financial redress for maladministration in that case?

Timothy Seaside
forum member

Housing services - Arun District Council

Send message

Total Posts: 539

Joined: 20 September 2018

Thanks Paul. That’s pretty much where I have landed in my thinking - it’s just a complaint with a request for compensation. The important bit about the ESA and HB stopping is that it makes it absolutely certain that the advice to withdraw the UC claim was bad.
But, as I’m a helpful sort, I’ve suggested to UC that they could maybe just backdate the eventual UC start date by two weeks and it will all be sorted - it might be an easier way out for them.