FH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (IS)

Capital held in an income-support claimant’s sole name is presumptively held both legally and beneficially by that claimant. The claimant bears the burden of displacing that conclusion on the balance of probabilities.

A fact-finding tribunal may compare signatures and draw an evaluative conclusion without forensic handwriting expertise. It need not assume that a person has a single uniform signature. Nor does a missing document carry a presumption that its contents would assist the claimant.

Reasons must be adequate in their context. Where findings establish knowledge of undisclosed capital and the duty to disclose it, concise reasoning may suffice on recoverability. Any shortcoming is immaterial where fuller reasons could not have changed the result.

The appellant challenged First-tier Tribunal decisions dismissing his appeals concerning entitlement to income support and recovery of an overpayment of £9,822.04. The Secretary of State had treated funds in HSBC and Nationwide accounts held in the appellant’s sole name as undeclared capital.

The appellant maintained that the funds belonged to his father and brother, that others had operated the accounts, and that a £13,100 HSBC cheque had not been signed by him. He also relied on the absence from the bundle of a second cheque and an IB50 form.

The central issue before the Upper Tribunal was whether the First-tier Tribunal had made sufficient findings and given adequate reasons, particularly for its finding that the cheque signature was the appellant’s and for its conclusion that the overpayment was recoverable.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decisions involved no material error of law and therefore stood.
2. Accounts held in the appellant’s sole name gave rise, on the evidence, to the position that he was their legal and beneficial owner. It was for him to show on the balance of probabilities that he lacked a beneficial interest in the capital. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled to reject the family evidence and his account that he did not know of, or operate, the accounts.
3. The question whether the signature on the £13,100 HSBC cheque was the appellant’s was one of evidential impression for the fact-finding tribunal. The tribunal could compare it with signatures on the appeal form and IB50 documents. It did not require accredited forensic graphology. The appellant’s argument wrongly assumed that he had one fixed, correct signature. The tribunal was entitled to find that the relevant signatures fell within an identifiable range of variants and that the cheque was signed by him.
4. The missing second cheque did not establish unfairness or an error in the tribunal’s inquisitorial approach. There was no legal presumption that a missing document would favour the claimant. In any event, the finding on the first cheque independently and fatally undermined the appellant’s account. The absence of the further IB50 was likewise not material.
5. The First-tier Tribunal’s reasoning on recoverability was concise but adequate in context. Its findings established that the appellant knew of capital above the relevant limits, received notifications requiring disclosure, and failed to disclose it. Those findings led irresistibly to the conclusion that he was under the duty imposed by regulation 32(1A) of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987, and that the overpayment was recoverable. Any further deficiency in reasons would in any event have been immaterial because it could not have affected the outcome.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appellant’s appeals and upheld the First-tier Tribunal decisions under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
• First-tier Tribunal, Birmingham: on 5 March 2014, dismissed the appellant’s entitlement and overpayment-recoverability appeals concerning income support.