CPAG search

Decision in brief

So cannot apply where someone else undertakes the whole task for the claimant – claimant who only eats a proper meal if someone else cooks it for him is not receiving ‘assistance’ under that definition

Comment from CPAG

This decision was made some time ago but has recently been placed on the Upper Tribunal website, no doubt as a consequence of its adoption in the more recent CP v SSWP (CPIP) decision.

Decision in brief

Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the State Pension Credit Regulations 2002, No.1792 – in this context ‘receipt’ of AA is not synonymous with ‘payable’ – literal meaning of ‘in receipt of’ is simply that AA payments are received and, in this context, that is not unworkable or irrational

Decision in brief

Income support (IS) on basis of being a foster carer – claimant stopped being a foster carer when she obtained a special guardianship order for the child (and later got child benefit and child tax credit) – change not disclose to DWP and on the facts no other IS prescribed category applied – overpayment caused by failure to disclose income is recoverable – but tribunal made insufficient findings of fact about date of receipt of new income and imposition of a penalty for failure to disclose without reasonable excuse should have been considered in light of advice from the local authority that her benefits would not be affected

Decision in brief

Analysis regarding jobseeker’s allowance housing costs in SK v SSWP [2013] UKUT 138 (AAC) approved and applied

Decision in brief

Where a concession is offered by a competent representative, a tribunal will ordinarily be entitled to accept it if it wishes – but that does not necessarily follow in the case of an unrepresented claimant – in such circumstances it should satisfy itself that the claimant has properly understood matters and is making an informed decision

Decision in brief

Tribunals can take a ‘robust approach’ to appellants who do not turn up for oral hearings that they have requested – but should then be a greater preparedness to set aside decisions where appropriate

Decision in brief

‘If a carer’s allowance is in payment to someone claiming a disability benefit on their own behalf it is understandable for a tribunal to wish to examine that. However it is not axiomatic that the receipt of carer’s allowance precludes entitlement to PIP, and the enquiry cannot start from that premise’ – for example, a carer with physical health problems may be providing verbal support to a partner with mental health problems

Decision in brief

Prompting requires some active steps by another person and the mere presence of children does not amount to that – however, it may be that the claimant’s children did prompt him by actively encouraging him to undertake certain activities – and the effect of the children’s presence on the claimant may be evidence of a need for prompting

Decision in brief

Where basis of entitlement includes having been entitled to ‘qualifying benefit’ for incapacity or limited capability for work, the element continues in payment on an indefinite basis until the claimant either ceases to be entitled to WTC or to have a disability which puts her/him at a disadvantage in getting a job – regulation 9(8) the Working Tax Credit (Entitlement and Maximum Rate) Regulations 2002, No.2005 – not permissible to remove the element merely because entitlement to the qualifying benefit has now come to an end – this does not apply where the qualifying benefit was a specified disability benefit (eg, disability living allowance or personal independence payment)

Decision in brief

There can be a ‘legal owner’ of an asset, with all the formal rights of ownership but no right to benefit from it, who holds the asset on trust for the ‘beneficial owner’ – in such cases it is the beneficial ownership that is relevant to entitlement to means-tested benefit (income support and housing benefit) – on the facts of this case, the claimant was the legal owner but only held a small share of the asset (a house) as a beneficial owner, and another person held the vast majority of the beneficial ownership – CH/715/2006 is not authority that it is legal ownership as opposed to beneficial ownership that is relevant to means-tested benefits

Decision in brief

Activity 5 is about testing manual dexterity – ie, ability to use fingers, hands and (to some extent, at least) wrists – descriptor (c) is a measure of ability to hold a pen or pencil – the meaningful mark referred to does not create a test of intellectual capacity or literacy – ‘meaningful’ means capable of conveying meaning – random scribbling or doodling is not sufficient but a name, signature or some form of symbol such as a tick is sufficient

Decision in brief

In order to qualify as an ‘orientation aid’ an item must be specialised in the sense that it has been designed for the specific purpose of assisting disabled people to follow a route safely – the mere fact that an item not so designed is used by a disabled person does not convert it into an ‘orientation aid’