×

Upper Tribunal hands down important social security appeal rights decision

Published:

The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) has handed down a three-judge decision in TR and GD v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2025] UKUT 332 (AAC), providing long-awaited clarity on the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal in cases involving late applications for revision and appeals following “any time” grounds such as official error.

The case – heard by the President, Mrs Justice Heather Williams, together with Upper Tribunal Judge West and Upper Tribunal Judge Stout – concerned whether claimants who apply for revision (including mandatory reconsideration) of benefit decisions more than 13 months after the original decision can still bring an appeal when the Secretary of State has considered that application. This is commonly the case where people are notified that their claim falls within a Legal Entitlements and Administrative Practices (“LEAP”) exercise, whereby the Secretary of State considers whether a cohort of claimants have been not been paid what they were entitled to as a result of, for example, the Tribunal interpreting the legislation in a way that was not originally envisaged by the DWP.

The Tribunal disapproved in part of earlier authority including PH aSM v SSWP (DLA) (JSA) [2018] UKUT 404 (AAC) and held that:

  1. When an application for revision is made outside the normal 13-month limit, the First-tier Tribunal’s jurisdiction depends on the Secretary of State having considered an application that is, in substance, a request for revision raising an arguable “any time” ground such as official error.
  2. If such an application has been considered, the claimant has a full right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. There is no need for the Tribunal to be satisfied that the Secretary of State had in fact made an official error before proceeding to determine the substance of the appeal.
  3. The appeal proceeds on a full merits basis, allowing the appeal if the original decision was wrong.

The decision resolves considerable uncertainty about the interaction between mandatory reconsideration, revision on “any time” grounds, and the First-tier Tribunal’s jurisdiction, issues which have led to conflicting case law and practical difficulties for welfare rights advisers and tribunals alike.

Paul Skinner was involved in this case.