Sharon Forsyth v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA): [2026] UKUT 410 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision of Judge Buley on 21 October 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
This case concerns recovery of an overpayment of Employment and Support Allowance. It raises two issues.
The first, which is of wider significance beyond this case, concerns the correctness of the decision of Commissioner Stockman in SK v Department for Communities (ESA) [2020] NI Com 73. In that case Commissioner Stockman distinguished Hinchy v SSWP [2005] UKHL 16, [2005] 1 WLR 967, by holding that, where a claimant does not themselves report a material change of circumstances, an overpayment of benefit nevertheless may not be recoverable where it is shown that the relevant DWP department or office has actual knowledge of that change as a result of the DWP’s internal computer systems.
The Upper Tribunal holds that SK was wrongly decided, and that the effect of Hinchy is that a claimant’s duty to disclose a change of circumstances in accordance with instructions given by the Secretary of State is incapable of being affected by the state of internal channels of communication within the DWP, even if it is shown that those internal channels of communication led to the relevant information being held within the office to which the claimant was instructed to provide disclosure. Accordingly, the First-tier Tribunal in this case did not err in law by failing to follow SK.
The second issue is whether, on the facts of this case, the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by failing to address the consequences of the Appellant’s evidence that she had provided disclosure of a material change of circumstances by telephone. On that issue, the Upper Tribunals holds that the First-tier Tribunal did err. Whether or not the Appellant’s failure to disclose a separate change of circumstances was causative of the overpayment cannot be resolved by the Upper Tribunal in the abstract, but will need to be addressed in the light of concrete findings of fact about the extent, and the circumstances, of any disclosure which she did make.
In addition, the Upper Tribunal makes some observations about the need for clear and precise findings about what instructions had been given to the Appellant as to whom any disclosure was to be made.