BK v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Whether a claimant is undertaking a full-time course of advanced education is a question of fact. The inquiry concerns the nature of the course, rather than the hours which the individual student chooses to devote to study.

An educational establishment’s classification of a course as full-time is not conclusive. However, it creates a presumption which should ordinarily be accepted unless the classification is prima facie inconclusive or is displaced by weighty contrary evidence. This approach applies to regulation 12(2)(a) of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013.

The claimant appealed against a First-tier Tribunal decision of 18 March 2020. The tribunal had upheld the Secretary of State’s decision that he was not entitled to Universal Credit because he was receiving education.

He was enrolled on a Master of Arts course which Goldsmiths, University of London repeatedly described as full-time. The claimant contended that the scheduled teaching and required independent study did not amount to full-time study, and that he remained available for work.

The central issue was whether he was undertaking a full-time course of advanced education within regulation 12(2)(a) of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal had not erred in law. It was entitled to find that the claimant was undertaking a full-time course of advanced education and was therefore receiving education for the relevant Universal Credit condition.

2. The question whether a course is full-time is one of fact. It concerns the course as provided, not the time which a particular student actually spends studying or the student’s ability to organise time for work. The Upper Tribunal accepted that the established approach to evidence about full-time courses applied to regulation 12(2)(a) of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013.

3. A course provider’s description of a course as full-time is not strictly conclusive. But where a course is offered as full-time, the claimant is presumed to be undertaking a full-time course. The provider’s classification should be accepted unless it is prima facie inconclusive or is challenged by weighty evidence raising the possibility that it should be rejected.

4. The tribunal’s use of the word determinative was potentially unfortunate. Read as a whole, however, its reasons showed that it had considered the claimant’s case and the relevant correspondence. The provider’s classification was not inconclusive and no weighty contrary evidence had been produced. Its factual conclusion was therefore open to it.

5. The Upper Tribunal also properly proceeded in the claimant’s absence. He had been notified, reasonable further steps had been taken to contact him, and it was fair and proportionate to proceed in the interests of justice under rule 38 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the claimant’s appeal and upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s decision: [2022] UKUT 73 (AAC).
• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): on 18 March 2020 dismissed the claimant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision that he was not entitled to Universal Credit from 16 September 2018.