Social Security Case Law - Winter 2024

Headnote

The Commissioner set aside this decision as there was agreement between the parties that the Tribunal had erred in law by not identifying the grounds to revise or supersede the decision under appeal.

Case Overview

The appellant made a single claim for ESA in June 2012, however, in 2019 the Department made an initial determination that she was living with someone as husband and wife. Her claim was terminated and subsequently reinstated as a couple claim. However, around 12 months later, the Department revised her ESA award, deciding that she was not entitled to an award from June 2012 as she did not provide the requested information about her partner’s capital. The appellant was unsuccessful  at Appeal and therefore made an application to the Commissioner.

The question was if the Tribunal had considered if the Department  had sufficient evidence to support a revision that disallowed the entitlement from June 2012.

Commissioner Mullan confirmed that the Department supported the appellant’s grounds of appeal and the case was referred to a newly constituted Tribunal. It was noted in the submissions to the Commissioner that the fact that the alleged partner may have possessed capital in excess of the ESA threshold at one point during the duration of appellant’s award does not in itself allow the Department to supersede for the duration of award – as outlined in [2016] UKUT 64 (AAC).