Leoni Fielding v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

For a universal credit supersession adding the carer element, the relevant change is when all entitlement conditions are met. Starting to provide care alone is insufficient where entitlement also depends on the cared-for person becoming entitled to a qualifying disability benefit. An advantageous superseding decision following late notification ordinarily takes effect from the assessment period in which notice is given. If the statutory conditions for extending the notification period are met because the qualifying change could not practicably have been reported sooner, the decision may instead take effect from the assessment period in which that change occurred.

Leoni Fielding received universal credit and provided at least 35 hours of care a week to her disabled brother. In January 2024, he was awarded personal independence payment (daily living component) retrospectively from 21 March 2023. Ms Fielding notified the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in February 2024 that she was caring for him. The Secretary of State added the carer element to her award from the assessment period in which she gave notice.

The First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) dismissed her appeal against that effective date. The Upper Tribunal considered whether the late-notification extension power applied and, if so, when the superseding decision took effect.

Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal made an error of law by treating the relevant change of circumstances as the start of the Appellant’s caring. For a superseding decision under regulation 23(1)(a) of the Universal Credit etc (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013, the relevant change was when all conditions for the carer element were satisfied. Those conditions were not met until personal independence payment became payable for the Appellant’s brother. The broader duty to notify changes that might affect benefit under regulation 38(4) of the Universal Credit etc (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013 did not alter what had to be notified for the effective-date rules (paras 7–12).

1. Under paragraph 20 of Schedule 1 to the Universal Credit etc (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013, a superseding decision based on a change of circumstances ordinarily takes effect from the first day of the assessment period in which the change occurred. For an advantageous decision where notice was given after that period, paragraph 21 ordinarily moves the effective date to the first day of the period in which notice was given (para 10).
2. The regulation 36 extension conditions were met. It was reasonable to extend time because the Appellant could not have known of the qualifying change before the PIP decision, and giving notice 28 days after that decision was reasonable. It was also not practicable to give notice within the assessment period in which the change occurred, because PIP payability from March 2023 only became evident through the decision made in January 2024 (paras 15–17).
3. The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and re-made it. The superseding decision was revised to take effect from 17 March 2023, the start of the assessment period in which the relevant change occurred. No further findings of primary fact were required, so the case was re-made rather than remitted (paras 14–17).

1. Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber). Allowed the appeal, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and re-made it so that the carer element took effect from 17 March 2023.
2. First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber). Dismissed the appeal against the effective date of the decision adding the carer element.