CU -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC): [2026] UKUT 40 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Grey KC on 28 January 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
Universal Credit (45; 6.5, 6.8). This is the second Upper Tribunal decision regarding a claim to backdate entitlement to Universal Credit (UC) by one month; the first decision is reported as CU v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC) [2024] UKUT 32 (AAC). On remission after that decision, the appeal was again dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal, on the basis that the Appellant could not establish that his disability (severe back pain) meant that he “could not reasonably have been expected to make the [UC] claim earlier”, applying Regulation 26(2)(b) of The Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013.
In this second appeal, the Upper Tribunal again considered the relevance of the Appellant’s background circumstances, including his lack of knowledge of potential entitlement to UC and his past benefits claims, as well as his disability. It held that the FTT’s approach, which had excluded consideration of these background circumstances when applying the causal test laid down by Regulation 26(2)(b), was unduly narrow and contrary to the previous decision in CU v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The circumstances of the claimant should be considered in their totality as part of determining whether the necessary causal connection exists. The appeal would be allowed for that reason and the FTT decision was therefore set aside.
However, the Upper Tribunal considered that it was in a position to determine the appeal itself and it was not necessary to remit the matter back to the First-tier Tribunal for further fact-finding. Having considered all of the relevant circumstances, it decided that the Appellant had not established that he could not reasonably have been expected to make the claim earlier. The appeal against the Secretary of State for Work and Pension’s decision was therefore dismissed.