CU v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

When deciding whether a Universal Credit claim may be backdated under regulation 26(2)(b) of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013, the claimant’s circumstances must be considered in their totality. The tribunal must assess whether the relevant circumstance, such as disability, had the necessary causal connection with the failure to claim earlier, viewed against the claimant’s wider background. The wider circumstances must not be excluded until that causal connection has first been established. The assessment remains whether the claimant could reasonably have been expected to make enquiries and claim earlier. On the facts, severe chronic back pain, linguistic difficulties and limited knowledge of Universal Credit did not make earlier enquiries unreasonable.

The appellant sought to backdate his Universal Credit entitlement by one month. The Secretary of State refused the request. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal after remission following an earlier Upper Tribunal decision, finding that his lack of knowledge of Universal Credit was unrelated to his disability and declining to use his wider circumstances in assessing regulation 26(2)(b).

The appeal concerned whether that approach correctly applied the statutory causal test and whether the Upper Tribunal should remit the case again or remake the decision.

1. Appeal allowed in relation to the First-tier Tribunal’s error of law. The First-tier Tribunal had treated the causal connection required by regulation 26(2)(b) as something that had to be established before the claimant’s wider circumstances could be considered. That was an unduly narrow approach and was inconsistent with the guidance in CU v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC) [2024] UKUT 32 (AAC).
2. The relevant question was whether, as a result of the disability, the claimant could reasonably have been expected to make the claim earlier. That question had to be assessed against the claimant’s circumstances as a whole. Relevant background included knowledge of the benefits system, linguistic difficulties, access to help and the claimant’s previous experience of claiming benefits. Those circumstances formed part of the assessment of whether the necessary causal connection existed.
3. The Upper Tribunal applied the reasonable-person inquiry derived from CSJSA/811/06. It considered the cumulative effect of the appellant’s severe back pain, lack of knowledge of Universal Credit, linguistic difficulties and need for help with documents. It also considered that he could telephone his GP, had previously claimed Income Support and had been unable to work for several months.
4. The appellant had not shown that he could not reasonably have been expected to make enquiries about his benefit entitlement. His disability did not prevent him from making such enquiries, and his dated experience of attending a Jobcentre in person did not justify assuming that no other means of claiming were available. The Upper Tribunal therefore set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and remade it by dismissing the appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal to backdate the claim.

• Upper Tribunal: The decision dated 3 October 2024 was set aside for error of law. The appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal to backdate Universal Credit was dismissed on remaking.
• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): The appeal was dismissed on 3 October 2024.
• Earlier Upper Tribunal proceedings: An earlier First-tier Tribunal decision had been set aside and the case remitted in CU v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC) [2024] UKUT 32 (AAC).