Scott v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

For regulation 6(2)(b), fully maintained means that the religious order provides for the member’s maintenance. The enquiry concerns who maintains the member, not the ultimate source of the funds. A member may therefore be fully maintained even where her work generates income used for her support. The regulations do not require the order to maintain her independently of her own contributions. The assessment is made at the time of the claim. A possibility that support may cease in the future does not prevent full maintenance at the relevant time.

A claim for state pension credit was refused because the claimant was regarded as a member of a religious order fully maintained by that order. The Appeal Tribunal allowed her appeal on the basis that the community’s funds were generated by her own work. The Upper Tribunal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal, set aside that decision and remade it by refusing the claim in [2009] UKUT 200 (AAC).

The claimant appealed on the construction of fully maintained and on an alleged factual mistake concerning payments between two Benedictine communities. The central issue was whether her work, and the possibility that she might later be unable to continue working, prevented her from being fully maintained.

Appeal dismissed. Rimer LJ gave the judgment, with which Sullivan LJ and Carnwath LJ agreed.

1. Regulation 6(2)(b) of the State Pension Credit Regulations 2002 excludes a member of a religious order from guarantee credit where she is fully maintained by her order. The language contains no qualification that maintenance must be provided independently of the member’s own work or contributions.
2. The relevant question is who maintains the member, not where the money used for maintenance originates. The claimant’s work generated income for the charitable trust operating the community’s businesses. She received no personal benefit from that income and was provided with bed and board under the trust arrangements. She was therefore maintained by the religious order, rather than maintaining herself.
3. Full maintenance is assessed at the time of the claim. The possibility that the order may later be unable to maintain the claimant does not alter the position at the claim date. If the order subsequently becomes unable to maintain her fully, a later claim may be possible.
4. The alleged factual mistake also failed. The two communities were financially independent, but the Appeal Tribunal had found that the Fernham Community paid for its keep to the trust. Those findings were consistent and did not undermine the Upper Tribunal’s decision. A human-rights ground had been abandoned, and the remaining grounds disclosed no error of law.

The formal order was that the appeal be dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The claimant’s appeal was dismissed.
2. Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber). In [2009] UKUT 200 (AAC), the Tribunal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal, set aside the Appeal Tribunal’s decision and remade the decision by refusing the pension-credit claim.
3. Appeal Tribunal. On 7 December 2006, the Tribunal allowed the claimant’s appeal against the refusal of her claim.