SL v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (CA) [2024] UKUT 228 (AAC)
You can read the full judgment ‘here‘.
Headnote
The Tribunal’s erred in their approach to the ‘recognisable cycle’ in determining earnings for Carer’s Allowance.
Background
The Secretary of State had determined that the claimant had been overpaid her award of Carer’s Allowance between April 2016 and February 2021 to an amount totalling £4,953.90. It was submitted that this was due to the claimants entering part-time work during term time that saw her exceed the earnings threshold limit. The Secretary calculated the claimants earnings using the default method/formula (multiplying each month’s earnings by 12(months) and then dividing the total by 52(weeks) to get a weekly figure. They also determined that overpayment was recoverable because the claimant was at fault for not disclosing her updated work pattern.
The claimant appeals the decision to the First-tier Tribunal stating:
- The SSWP should have calculated her earnings over a ‘recognisable cycle’ of a year to reflect her fluctuating work patterns, i.e. taking into account both her term-time and holidays hours to have a more accurate number, instead of calculating her earnings on a monthly basis.
- It was also argued that she did update the SSWP of her new work arrangements via letter date in January 2016.
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the claimants appeal stating that it was not ‘irrational’ for the SSWP to calculate earnings on a monthly basis under Regulation 8(3) of the 1996 Regulations (noted below) and they dismissed the appeal against the recoverability decisions despite the arguments raised by the claimant about notifying SSWP of the change.
The claimant then appealed to the Upper Tribunal.
Legal Issue
The Upper Tribunal needed to determine whether there was an error in law in relation to SSWP’s decisions not to exercise its discretion to average earnings over a ‘recognisable period’ – i.e. calculate the claimant’s earnings across the year due to their fluctuating patterns instead of calculating them on a monthly basis.
Relevant Legislation
- Regulation 8, The Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1996
Decision
The Judge allowed the appeal outlining that the Tribunal had erred in law by misdirecting its approach to Regulation 8 and provide adequate reasons for its decision. The Judge also noted that the Tribunal had erred in law in its approach to the claimant’s recoverability decision and remitted the case to be a newly constituted Tribunal.
The Judge noted that the Tribunal should have concluded for itself whether to average the claimants earnings over a ‘recognisable cycle’ instead of considering the rationality of the SSWP’s decision not to – therefore their misdirected approach to the regulations amounts to an error in law. Ultimately, as noted by both Judge Wright (granted permission to appeal) and Judge Brewer (Upper Tribunal) the First-tier Tribunal should have decided for itself whether to exercise its discretion to calculate earnings across the recognisable cycle of work (one year) instead of monthly in circumstances of this case.