AB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (JSA): [2018] UKUT 43 (AAC) ; [2018] AACR 20

Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Wright on 2 February 2018.

• From: HM Courts & Tribunals Service and Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
• Published: 21 February 2018
• Last updated: 31 July 2019 바카라 사이트� See all updates

• Categories: Claims and payments
• Sub-categories: Claims and payments - late claim: other benefits
• Judges: Wright, S
• Decision date: 2 February 2018

Read the full decision in

Judicial Summary

Reported as [2018] AACR 20

Jobseeker바카라 사이트檚 Allowance 바카라 사이트� whether an A4e advisor assisting a claimant under the Work Programme was 바카라 사이트渁n officer of the Department for Work and Pensions바카라 사이트� for the purposes of regulation 19(5)(d) of the Claims and Payments Regulations

The claimant made a claim for Jobseekers바카라 사이트� Allowance (JSA) on 17 June 2012 but asked for it to be payable from 9 January 2012, the day after his previous JSA award had ended. The Secretary of State refused to 바카라 사이트渂ackdate바카라 사이트� the claim to the earlier period. The claimant challenged the decision and explained that he had been offered employment as a taxi driver but this was subject to CRB (criminal records bureau) checks as the work involved driving children to and from school. It was said that his A4e adviser had (wrongly) advised him to stop claiming JSA once he had accepted the offer of the job. The job offer was later withdrawn following the CRB checks. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the claimant바카라 사이트檚 appeal and stated that the employment agency, A4e, were not part of the DWP and it was not reasonable for him to have assumed so. The claimant appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that:

1. the test as to whether a person was an 바카라 사이트榦fficer of the [DWP]바카라 사이트� under regulation 19(5)(d) did not involve whether the claimant reasonably believed or assumed that to be the case; a test of reasonableness is found in regulation 19(4)(b) but that test only applies once the factual circumstance under regulation 19(5)(d) has arisen (paragraph 24);

2. the words 바카라 사이트榓n officer of the [DWP]바카라 사이트� are words of limitation as it is not any information whosoever its provider that falls within regulation 19(5)(d) and can found the statutory basis for a late claim for benefit (paragraph 26);

3. if the Carltona principle (from Carltona Limited v Commissioner of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560) is embodied by regulation 19(5)(d), it can only be on the basis that the duty or power on the Secretary of State (and hence her officials within the DWP) to provide information to claimants arises by way of necessary implication from the duties imposed on the Secretary of State under the Social Security Act 1998 to decide claims for benefit; there is no express statutory power or duty on the Secretary of State to provide information. However, there is nothing in the statutory scheme that vests any statutory decision-making function in external providers such as, here, A4e. The A4e advisor was therefore not an 바카라 사이트渙fficer of the [DWP]바카라 사이트� because it was no part of the functions delegated to him to make any decision on the appellant바카라 사이트檚 entitlement to JSA and, by implication, nor was it any part of his delegated functions to provide information to the appellant about the conditions of entitlement to JSA including whether his existing 바카라 사이트榗laim바카라 사이트� should remain in payment (paragraphs 36 to 38 and 40 to 43);

4. alternatively, even if the duty to provide information to claimants relevant to the conditions of entitlement to a social security benefit arises from the good and fair administration of the social security scheme as a whole (by way of analogy with paragraphs [59]-[65] of R(Reilly and Wilson) v SSWP [2013] UKSC 68; [2014] AC 453; [2014] AACR 9), the responsibility for that scheme and its conditions for entitlement still vests fundamentally with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and nothing in the statutory provisions discussed in relation to A4e바카라 사이트檚 functions can impliedly, by way of fairness or needs of good administration, vest an information function in relation to the conditions of entitlement of jobseeker바카라 사이트檚 allowance, or any other social security benefit, in A4e or its employees (paragraphs 39 and 44); and

5. further alternatively, even if the approach in CJSA/2232/2012 and/or CJSA/610/1998 is applied, it still leads to the same conclusion that the A4e official was not acting, or to be regarded, as an officer of DWP. The legal background to the A4e official discharging the functions delegated to him under regulation 18 of the 2011 JSA Regulations would plainly be part of the factual circumstances to consider. Other considerations are also relevant. The 바카라 사이트淢y Work Programme Agreement바카라 사이트� document entered into by the appellant and A4e said most relevantly that the appellant was expected to 바카라 사이트淣otify your JCP advisor when you have started work and inform them that you need to sign off benefits바카라 사이트�. This pointed to the Jobcentre Plus office as the source of information about benefits

Published 21 February 2018

Last updated 31 July 2019 + show all updates

1. 31 July 2019

   Decision selected for reporting as [2018] AACR 20

2. 21 February 2018

   First published.