Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2013 UKUT 547 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	CTC 2325 2011
Appellant:	ZM and AB
Respondent:	HMRC (TC)
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge C G Ward
Date Of Decision:	05/11/2013
Date Added:	02/12/2013
Main Category:	Tax credits and family credit
Main Subcategory:	other
Secondary Category:	Human rights law
Secondary Subcategory:	article 6 (fair hearing)
Notes:	Reported as [2014] AACR 17. Human rights - Article 6 – tax credits claims and payments – how regulation 5(4) and (8) of the Tax Credits (Claims and Notification) Regulations to be applied Mr M’s wife, Mrs B, was subject to immigration control under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. They submitted a joint claim to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) for tax credits. Their claim was refused apparently on the grounds that Mrs B had no national insurance number (NINO). However, under the Tax Credits (Claims and Notification) Regulations this requirement did not apply to anyone subject to immigration control. HMRC later confirmed that the claim had been refused because Mrs B had failed to provide proof of her identity. The particular regulation, whereby a NINO was not required, had not been overlooked but the condition for its application had not been established. The First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) considered that it had no jurisdiction in these circumstances. The appellants appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT) but, before the appeal could proceed, the HMRC awarded tax credits to the appellants – it accepted Mrs B had not understood what proof was needed to confirm her identity (neither she nor Mr M understood English). The appellants continued with their appeal so as to establish whether the F-tT had acted correctly. The issue before the UT was how regulation 5(4) and (8) fell to be adjudicated upon. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. section 14 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 (TCA) did not extend to disputes about whether a valid claim had been made. The adjudication structure for tax credits was different from that under social security law and had been adopted advisedly. Investigation of facts was not always precluded in judicial review (even if not the norm), but the starting point for a court in judicial review of confining itself to facts before the decision-maker, subject to exceptions none of which applied in the instant case, meant that it was not a sufficient remedy for the purposes of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in this class of case (paragraphs 28 to 32); 2. the F-tT erred in law in not applying section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998. It was appropriate to do so in such a way that it was possible to read and give effect to section 14(1) of the TCA, read together with section 38 of the same Act, so as to have the effect that HMRC was to be viewed as having taken a decision which then became appealable (paragraphs 62 to 67); 3. the claim for tax credit could not lawfully be rejected for failure to comply with any of the requirements of paragraph (4) of regulation 5 (paragraph 70). The F-tT’s decision was set aside by the judge and re-made.
Decision(s) to Download:	[2014] AACR 17bv.doc