Martin Paterson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

A tribunal determining the date of a universal credit claim must consider whether a telephone claim was permitted, whether it was properly completed, and whether any defect was corrected within the prescribed period. It must also consider whether assistance with an electronic claim triggered an earlier date of claim. The necessary factual findings must be made before applying regulations 8 and 10 of the Universal Credit etc (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013. Failure to address either route may constitute a material error of law where the earlier date could affect entitlement.

The appellant appealed against a First-tier Tribunal decision dated 29 May 2025, which upheld the Secretary of State’s decision that his universal credit claim began on 12 December 2023 rather than 22 October 2023. The appellant had telephoned the universal credit helpline on 22 or 23 October 2023 intending to claim, but was allegedly told to wait three months. He later made an electronic claim with Jobcentre assistance.

The Upper Tribunal considered whether the First-tier Tribunal had properly addressed the statutory rules governing telephone claims, defective claims, and assistance with electronic claims.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision involved material errors of law and was set aside under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
2. The First-tier Tribunal had found that the appellant telephoned the helpline intending to claim universal credit. It therefore needed to make findings addressing regulation 8 of the Universal Credit etc (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013: whether the number was specified by the Secretary of State; whether the claim fell within an accepted class of telephone claims, or the Secretary of State was willing to accept it; what information was supplied; and, if the claim was defective, when the defect was notified and whether it was corrected within one month.
3. Those findings were material. They could have established that the claim was properly completed by telephone on 22 or 23 October 2023, or that a defective claim was treated as properly made from that date under regulations 8(6) and 10(2).
4. Alternatively, if the electronic claim was made on 12 December 2023, the Tribunal had to consider regulation 10(1)(b). Since the appellant received assistance at a Jobcentre, the relevant question was when he first notified the Secretary of State of his need for that assistance. That date could also have been 22 or 23 October 2023.
5. The approach in Miah v SSWP [2024] 1 WLR 3012, concerning the commencement date of an award as part of the determination of a universal credit claim under section 8 of the Social Security Act 1998, was followed.
6. The case was remitted to a differently constituted First-tier Tribunal for an oral rehearing and fresh factual findings. The new Tribunal was directed to consider circumstances existing at the date of the Secretary of State’s decision, although later evidence could relate to those circumstances.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal decision was set aside for material errors of law and the case was remitted for fresh consideration.
• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): Appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision was dismissed on 29 May 2025.