DJ v Department for Communities (UC) [2024] NICom21
You can read the full judgment ‘here‘.
Headnote
It is unfair for a tribunal to proceed in its WCA determination without the UC50 and absence of the claimant.
Background
The claimant completed his Universal Credit capability for work questionnaire (UC50) and attended a medical assessment with a healthcare professional in May 2022. However, the Department determined that he scored insufficient points to approve an award of limited capability for work. The claimant challenged the decision via mandatory reconsideration and then progressed his claim to the social security tribunal.
The claimant agreed for the tribunal to go ahead without his presence and the tribunal considered the evidence of the HCP and additional medical records. However, the Department was unable to locate the claimant’s UC50 form and it was not available to the tribunal panel. The tribunal continued to review the appeal and determined that the claimant scored zero points under the work capability assessment.
The claimant appealed the decision to the Commissioner.
Legal Issue
The Commissioner considered whether it was fair for the tribunal to proceed without having the UC50 and the claimant not being present to give oral evidence.
Relevant Legislation
- Article 15(8)(b), Social Security (NI) Order 1998
- Article 17(2)(b) and Article 24(1), Welfare Reform Order (NI) 2015
- Part V and Schedules 6 to 9, The Universal Credit Regulations (NI) 2016
- Regulation 57, The Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations (NI) 1999
Relevant Case Law
- PMcK v Department for Social Development [2014] NI Com 3
- C18/02-03(IB)
Decision
The Commissioner determined with the support of the Department’s representative that it was procedurally unfair for the tribunal to proceed without the presence of the UC50 or the claimant. He referenced Regulation 57 of the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations (NI) 1999 that outlines that a missing document relating to the proceedings in which the decision was made is grounds for the tribunal to set aside the hearing. The Commissioner also noted that although there is no formal procedural requirement that a UC50 be present at the tribunal, in the absence of the claimant being present he would expect the form to be presented to the tribunal in place of his oral evidence.
The appeal was allowed, and the decision has been back to a newly constituted tribunal.