CLO v 1) Bolsover District Council 2) The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (HB): [2026] UKUT 166 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Butler on 27 April 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
The First-tier Tribunal made a material error of law in its decision due to the conflict between its Decision Notice and Statement of Reasons in explaining the recoverability of a housing benefit overpayment of £27,480.96 from the appellant. The First-tier Tribunal’s findings of fact that about what caused the overpayment to arise, were not, however, made in error of law.
The Upper Tribunal decided that given those factual findings, the only possible outcome was that the housing benefit overpayment was recoverable from the appellant. It therefore remade the First-tier Tribunal’s decision in those terms.
The Upper Tribunal decided that when considering whether a payment falls within regulation 12(1) of the Housing Benefit (persons who have attained the qualifying age for state pension credit) Regulations 2006, there is no material distinction between payments made between tenants in common and payments made between joint tenants. For the avoidance of doubt, the Upper Tribunal considers the analysis at paragraph 12 of CH/1578/2006 should be applied where the equitable interest in a property is held as tenants in common and one tenant in common is making payments to another in respect of it.