Introduction

The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) delivered a significant judgment in the cases of PH and SM v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DLA)(JSA) ([2018] UKUT 404 (AAC)). This commentary delves into the intricacies of the decision, exploring how it redefines the jurisdictional boundaries for appeals related to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) benefits, especially concerning the timing and grounds for mandatory reconsideration requests.

Summary of the Judgment

The Upper Tribunal reviewed two distinct cases:

• Case CSDLA/375/2016 (PH): PH sought to appeal a decision regarding his DLA entitlements after nearly 18 months from the original decision. His request for mandatory reconsideration was based on a simple disagreement with the decision, not on official error.
• Case CSJSA/513/2016 (SM): SM appealed a JSA termination decision, again after surpassing the 13-month limit. However, his request was grounded in alleged official error by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).

The Tribunal concluded that:

• In PH's case, the appeal was dismissed as his mandatory reconsideration request was not based on official error and was submitted beyond the permissible 13-month period.
• In SM's case, the appeal was allowed because his request for reconsideration was grounded in official error, thereby granting the Tribunal jurisdiction despite the late submission.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents and regulations:

• CJ and SG v SSWP [2018] AACR 5: This case established that tribunals have jurisdiction to hear appeals if the mandatory reconsideration request was made within 13 months, even if the SSWP declined to consider it.
• Adesina v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWCA 818: Introduced the principle allowing limited discretion to extend time limits under exceptional circumstances.
• King v East Ayrshire Council 1998 SC 182: Emphasized the importance of good administration and legal certainty, underpinning the rationale for enforcing time limits.
• Other Cases: References to cases like R(IS)15/04, R(TC) 1/05, and Wood v SSWP [2003] EWCA Civ 53 provide a historical context for jurisdictional interpretations.

Legal Reasoning

The Tribunal's reasoning hinges on the distinction between two types of mandatory reconsideration requests:

• Any Ground Revisions (Regulation 3(1) & 3(3)): These are standard reconsideration requests based on disagreements with the decision's merits. They are time-bound, requiring submission within 13 months of the original decision.
• Any Time Revisions (Regulation 3(5)): These requests are based on official error, allowing submissions beyond the 13-month limit.

The Tribunal clarified that:

• Appeals based on any ground revisions submitted after 13 months fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
• However, appeals based on any time revisions (i.e., official error) may still be heard, provided the grounds for official error are substantiated.

Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized that:

• Internal policies or guidance of the SSWP cannot override statutory provisions.
• The Adesina principle offers a narrow discretionary extension only in exceptional circumstances, which SM did not satisfy.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for future DLA and JSA appeals:

• Clarification of Jurisdiction: Establishes a clear boundary distinguishing between standard and official error appeals concerning time limits.
• Encouragement of Timely Reconsideration: Reinforces the necessity for claimants to adhere to the 13-month limit for standard reconsideration requests.
• Limited Scope for Extensions: The stringent application of the Adesina principle ensures that extensions are rare and reserved for truly exceptional cases.
• Enhanced Legal Certainty: By strictly interpreting the regulations, the Tribunal promotes predictability in the appeals process.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mandatory Reconsideration

A procedural step where claimants must first request the SSWP to review their benefit decision before appealing to a tribunal. This process is intended to potentially resolve disputes without the need for formal appeals.

Official Error

A specific type of error where an officer of the Department of Work and Pensions makes a mistake in the decision-making process, such as providing incorrect advice or failing to consider relevant regulations.

Adesina Principle

A legal doctrine that allows courts or tribunals to extend statutory time limits for filing appeals or claims in exceptional circumstances, ensuring compliance with rights under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Tribunal Jurisdiction

The authority granted to the tribunal to hear and decide on specific types of cases. In this context, it refers to the tribunal's power to adjudicate appeals based on the grounds of the mandatory reconsideration request and its timing.

Conclusion

The Upper Tribunal's decision in PH and SM v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions underscores the critical importance of adhering to statutory time limits in the benefit appeals process. By delineating clear boundaries between standard and official error appeals, the Tribunal ensures that the appeals system remains both fair and efficient. This judgment not only reinforces existing legal frameworks but also provides clarity on the limited circumstances under which exceptions to time limits may be granted. For claimants, it emphasizes the necessity of timely action in contesting benefit decisions, while for legal practitioners, it offers a clearer roadmap for navigating complex jurisdictional issues in social security appeals.