TB, R (on the application of) v The First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

When deciding whether exceptional circumstances justify extending the time limit for a criminal injuries compensation claim, the decision-maker must consider the applicant’s wider circumstances. This includes the reasons why the applicant did not know of the compensation scheme and what it was reasonable for the applicant to do to discover it. Ignorance of the scheme must not be treated as irrelevant or as an automatic answer to the claim. A tribunal that excludes that factor without investigating the underlying reasons may make an error of law and fail to give adequate reasons.

TB applied for criminal injuries compensation in October 2021 for an incident in June 2014. The application was outside the two-year period in paragraph 87 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority refused to extend time under paragraph 89, and the First-tier Tribunal dismissed TB’s appeal on 31 May 2024.

TB sought judicial review. The issue was whether the First-tier Tribunal had properly considered her lack of knowledge of the scheme, the reasons for that lack of knowledge, and her wider circumstances when assessing exceptional circumstances.

1. Application granted; decision quashed and appeal remitted. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision dated 31 May 2024 was quashed under section 15(1)(c) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The appeal was remitted under section 17(1)(a) to a freshly constituted First-tier Tribunal.
2. Paragraph 87 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 imposed the relevant two-year time limit. Paragraph 89 permitted an extension where exceptional circumstances meant that the applicant could not have applied earlier and the evidence could be determined without further extensive enquiries.
3. The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by treating ignorance of the scheme as no defence to lateness and disregarding it when assessing exceptional circumstances. Consistently with R(JA) v First-tier Tribunal [2024] UKUT 121 (AAC), it had to explore the applicant’s wider circumstances, including why she did not know the scheme existed. Those reasons framed the reasonableness of what she did, or failed to do, to discover the scheme and formed part of the package of circumstances resulting in the delay.
4. The failure to treat ignorance as a potentially relevant factor led to inadequate factual findings and reasons. The tribunal had not explored why TB lacked knowledge of the scheme or what she could reasonably have done to become aware of it.
5. The remitted tribunal was directed to apply the principles in R(JA) v First-tier Tribunal [2024] UKUT 121 (AAC), hear the matter orally, and exclude members involved in the earlier decision. It was not bound by the previous tribunal’s findings and could reach the same or a different outcome.

• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): On 31 May 2024, dismissed TB’s appeal against CICA’s refusal to extend time under paragraph 89 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012.
• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Granted judicial review, quashed the First-tier Tribunal’s decision, and remitted the appeal to a new tribunal.