AM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

A claim for Universal Credit need not specify the date from which entitlement is sought. The statutory requirement to claim in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time does not authorise a further requirement concerning the contents of the claim. Under regulation 26 of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013, the relevant period and any entitlement before the claim date are matters for the Secretary of State to determine when deciding the claim. A claimant may challenge that determination on appeal, including by relying on evidence and arguments not previously put before the decision-maker.

The appellant, a young man with autism and a severe learning disability, claimed Universal Credit through his father on 16 March 2020. The Secretary of State awarded benefit from that date. The appellant later sought entitlement from 16 February 2020, when his parents’ child tax credit entitlement ended. The Secretary of State refused the request, and the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the claim could not be backdated because the earlier period had not been claimed before the claim was determined. The central issue before the Upper Tribunal was whether a Universal Credit claimant must identify the period from which entitlement is sought when making the claim.

The appeal was allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision of 25 March 2021 was set aside and the case was remitted to a fresh First-tier Tribunal for an oral hearing.

1. Sections 1(1)(a) and 5(1)(a) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 require a claim to be made in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time. They regulate the form and timing of a claim, not its contents. They impose no requirement to specify the date from which Universal Credit is sought.

2. Regulation 26 of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013 concerns the time within which a claim must be made. Its reference to the period in respect of which the claim is made does not require the claimant to identify that period. The relevant period is an objective matter for the decision-maker to establish when determining the claim.

3. Regulation 26(2) requires an extension of time, subject to its conditions and maximum period, where the claim was not made on the first day of the relevant period. A claimant’s request for an earlier start date does not itself determine the relevant period or extend the time for claiming.

4. The Upper Tribunal declined to apply the approach in R(SB) 9/84 to the Universal Credit scheme. The wording and structure of regulation 26 differ materially from the earlier supplementary-benefit provision. Universal Credit entitlement is assessed retrospectively, the available extension is more restricted, and the statutory decision-making framework has changed.

5. The Secretary of State’s administrative claim form cannot alter the meaning of the legislation. However, the absence of a question about the start date did not support the First-tier Tribunal’s conclusion that the claimant was legally required to provide one.

6. The First-tier Tribunal failed to decide whether regulation 26(2) and any relevant circumstance in regulation 26(3) were satisfied. That issue was remitted. The Upper Tribunal’s decision on error of law did not determine the appellant’s substantive entitlement.

• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): dismissed the appellant’s appeal on 25 March 2021, holding that the Universal Credit claim could not be backdated before 16 March 2020.
• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): allowed the appeal, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision for error of law, and remitted the case to a fresh tribunal for an oral hearing.