CJ v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

A purported decision letter does not itself establish that a decision was made. The tribunal must assess the evidence and may find that the letter was issued in error. Without a decision under sections 8 or 10 of the Social Security Act 1998, there is no appealable decision and the First-tier Tribunal must strike out the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. Further, a decision which merely leaves an existing decision unchanged is a decision not to revise or supersede it. The right of appeal lies against the existing decision, not against the refusal to revise or supersede it.

The claimant had received Personal Independence Payment following the supersession and extension of an earlier award. The Department for Work and Pensions later sent her a letter purporting to confirm an award, although there was no record of a corresponding decision or request for review. She appealed to the First-tier Tribunal.

The First-tier Tribunal found that the letter had been issued in error, that no decision under sections 8 or 10 of the Social Security Act 1998 had been made, and struck out the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. The claimant appealed to the Upper Tribunal. The central issues were whether the letter itself constituted or evidenced an appealable decision and, alternatively, whether a decision leaving the existing award unchanged carried a right of appeal.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The strike-out decision involved no material error of law.
2. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled to evaluate the evidence rather than take the purported decision letter at face value. In particular, the absence of any request for revision or supersession, any record of a decision, or any obvious reason for action by the Secretary of State supported the finding that the letter had been issued in error.
3. That finding meant that no decision under section 8 or section 10 of the Social Security Act 1998 had been made. The First-tier Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and was required by rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 to strike out the proceedings.
4. Alternatively, even if the letter evidenced a decision in the terms stated, it merely confirmed every element of the existing extension decision. It therefore amounted to a decision neither to revise nor to supersede that decision. The only appealable decision was the existing extension decision, which was not the decision challenged in the proceedings.
5. The approach was consistent with CIS/4/2003 and R (CS) 5/09. The absence of a separate right of appeal against a refusal to revise was not altered by the fact that the original decision remained appealable.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal from the First-tier Tribunal dismissed.
• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): on 17 October 2023, District Tribunal Judge Ly struck out the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.