Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2013 UKUT 234 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	CSE 269 2012
Appellant:	JM
Respondent:	Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Judge/Commissioner:	Three-Judge Panel / Tribunal of Commissioners
Date Of Decision:	15/05/2013
Date Added:	27/06/2013
Main Category:	Employment and support allowance
Main Subcategory:	other
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Reported as [2014] AACR 5. Employment and support allowance – conversion process – whether notice complying with Regulations – whether notice issued In each case the Secretary of State decided that the claimant’s award of income support should terminate because he was found not to have limited capacity for work for employment and support allowance (ESA) purposes. The claimants all appealed on the basis that the decisions were invalid because they had not received the notices as required under the Employment and Support Allowance (Transitional Provisions, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit) (Existing Awards) (No.2) Regulations 2010 and that, in any event, the standard form of notice, form IBM01, did not contain the information specified within regulation 4(3). The Secretary of State submitted that there was compliance with the legislation but that, even if there was not, any breach did not render the decisions invalid. Held, dismissing the appeal, that: 1. regulation 4(3)(c) did no more than require that it be made clear to claimants that, in order to qualify for ESA, they must satisfy the requirement of having limited capability for work. Form IBM01 complied with that requirement. It was unnecessary to decide whether form IBM01 would be adequate when a claimant was absent from Great Britain, or was for some reason not bound to satisfy the basic conditions in section 1(3)(b), (c) and (f) (paragraphs 27 to 45); 2. a notice under regulation 4 was “issued” when it was generated and sent out by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State (paragraphs 46 to 58); 3. in any event, if the notice was defective on the grounds suggested by the claimants and if it was necessary that it be served, rather than merely sent, and service was not effected, such breaches of regulation 4 would not invalidate the termination decisions (paragraphs 59 to 69); 4. the civil standard of proof applied and the computer screen print generally provided with the Secretary of State’s response to an appeal was sufficient to prove on the balance of probabilities that form IBM01 was issued (paragraph 70).
Decision(s) to Download:	[2014] AACR 5bv.doc