R.R. v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

A person does not normally live at an address merely because they spend more time there than elsewhere. Whether a person is a non-dependant under paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 4 to the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 requires a holistic assessment of all relevant circumstances.

For a student living away during term time, relevant matters include the legal basis and duration of university accommodation, vacation arrangements, registration and correspondence addresses, work and personal connections, and where possessions are kept. The assessment is not a mathematical comparison of time spent at each address.

The appellant, a single parent, claimed the housing costs element of Universal Credit. Her adult daughter attended a three-year degree course in Manchester, returning to the family home during vacations and at other times.

The Secretary of State and the First-tier Tribunal treated the daughter as normally living at university because she spent most of the year there. The first tribunal consequently refused an additional bedroom allowance. A second tribunal upheld an overpayment consequential upon that decision.

The appellant appealed both decisions. The central issue was whether the daughter normally lived with the appellant for the purpose of determining whether she was a non-dependant under paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 4 to the Universal Credit Regulations 2013.

1. Both appeals were allowed. The First-tier Tribunal decisions involved errors of law. They were set aside and the case was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for an oral rehearing under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

2. The test in paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 4 to the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 is whether the person normally lives in the renter’s accommodation. It is a question of fact and degree requiring a holistic assessment of all relevant circumstances. It is not resolved by comparing the time spent at two addresses.

3. For a student living away at university, the fact-finder should first identify the legal basis of the university accommodation, including whether it is private rented accommodation or halls of residence and whether the student may stay during vacations. Other relevant, non-exhaustive indicators include electoral, medical, postal and mobile-phone registrations, employment, the location of belongings and any pet, and the character of the student’s continuing connection with the parental home.

4. The first tribunal made no findings on those matters and focused exclusively on the duration of the daughter’s presence at each address. It therefore applied the wrong legal test. That error infected the second tribunal’s consequential overpayment decision.

5. If the fresh tribunal finds that the daughter was a non-dependant normally living with the appellant, a non-dependant deduction does not necessarily follow. In particular, a deduction is not made where the non-dependant is under 21, as the daughter was at the material time.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Allowed both appeals, set aside the First-tier Tribunal decisions, and remitted the case to a fresh tribunal.

• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): On 29 August 2023, dismissed the appeal against the consequential overpayment decision under file number SC246/23/00886.

• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): On 3 May 2023, dismissed the entitlement appeal under file number SC246/22/01293, holding that the appellant was not entitled to an additional bedroom allowance.