Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Phillip Buckley

A claimant relying on regulation 4(4) for the higher rate of bereavement support payment must have become entitled to child benefit as the provision requires. For this purpose, section 141 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is read with section 13 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, as required by section 177(2) of the former Act. Entitlement therefore includes making a valid child-benefit claim; satisfying the substantive responsibility conditions alone is insufficient. A retrospective extension allowing a claim for bereavement support payment does not satisfy the separate child-benefit claim condition. Tribunals must apply the statutory scheme and cannot amend it to relieve hardship.

Mr Buckley's partner, with whom he lived and had a child, died in 2018. A 2023 remedial order enabled qualifying cohabiting partners to claim bereavement support payment retrospectively. Mr Buckley claimed in February 2023, but had never claimed child benefit after the death; by then, the child was no longer eligible for child benefit. The Secretary of State refused the higher rate. The First-tier Tribunal allowed Mr Buckley's appeal, holding that he had been substantively entitled to child benefit under section 141 even without claiming it. The Secretary of State appealed with permission. The issue was whether regulation 4(4)'s requirement that the claimant became entitled to child benefit under section 141 required a valid claim under section 13 of the Administration Act, and whether the retrospective change altered that requirement.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal made a material error of law by finding that Mr Buckley had become entitled to child benefit without having claimed it. Its decision was set aside and re-made.
2. Regulation 4(4) of the Bereavement Support Payment Regulations 2017 required Mr Buckley, after his partner's death, to have become entitled to child benefit under section 141 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. It was undisputed that he met the substantive conditions concerning responsibility for a qualifying young person for a period after the death.
3. Section 177(2) of the Benefits Act requires that Act to be read, where appropriate, with the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The Acts address the same subject, entitlement to child benefit, and reading them together creates no manifest discrepancy. Section 13 of the Administration Act makes a valid claim a condition of entitlement. The section 141 entitlement referred to in regulation 4(4) therefore includes that claim condition.
4. Mr Buckley never claimed child benefit, so he did not become entitled to it for the purpose of the higher-rate condition. The retrospective remedial order enabled qualifying cohabiting partners to claim bereavement support payment, but did not enable a retrospective child-benefit claim or remove the separate condition. The Department's website and Mr Buckley's good-faith reliance on it did not change the correct legal analysis. The tribunals had no power to alter the law to address the resulting hardship.
5. The Upper Tribunal dismissed Mr Buckley's appeal against the Secretary of State's decision that he was not entitled to the higher rate.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), [2026] UKUT 291 (AAC) : allowed the Secretary of State's appeal, set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision and re-made it by dismissing Mr Buckley's appeal against the Secretary of State's decision.
• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber), case no SC944/23/00815, decision dated 7 November 2024: allowed Mr Buckley's appeal against the refusal of the higher rate of bereavement support payment.