Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v RB (by her appointee AB) (UC): [2026] UKUT 320 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision of Judge Stout on 18 August 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
The claimant was, at the time of the relevant decision on 1 September 2021, an 18-year-old student in non-advanced education who was in receipt of Personal Independent Payment (PIP), but had not previously applied for Universal Credit (UC).
The First-tier Tribunal had erred in holding that the claimant fell within the exception in regulation 14(1)(b) of The Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/376) (the UC Regulations). As it stood at the relevant time, that exception only applied if the Secretary of State had determined, on or before the date of the claim to UC, that the claimant had limited capability for work (LCW) (or was to be treated as having LCW). By virtue of regulations 38 and 39(6) and (7) of the UC Regulations, a claimant can only be treated as having LCW on the basis of paragraph 4 of Schedule 8 if a work capability assessment (WCA) has determined that they do not have LCW.
The First-tier Tribunal erred in assessing for itself whether, as at the date of claim, the claimant met the condition in paragraph 4 of Schedule 8 to the UC Regulations for being treated as LCW. The First-tier Tribunal’s task was to stand in the shoes of the Secretary of State as at the date that the original decision was made on 1 September 2021 and consider whether, as at the date of the original claim to UC on 19 August 2021, the Secretary of State had determined the claimant to have LCW, or that she should be treated as having LCW. There was only one answer to that question, which was that there had been no such determination. Regulation 14(1)(b) accordingly did not apply. The First-tier Tribunal had also been wrong to regard regulation 2(1A) of the Social Security (Medical Evidence) Regulations 1976 as being relevant to the appeal.
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and re-made the decision so as to uphold the Secretary of State’s revised entitlement and overpayment decisions.