The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v SC; MJ v 1) London Borough of Bromley 2) The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: [2025] UKUT 299 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Butler on 3 September 2025.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
These appeals raise a shared legal issue about the legal mechanism for making closed period supersession decisions, which is where benefit entitlement is changed for a specific, closed period of time. They involve the question whether an award of universal credit or housing benefit can be superseded by a closed period supersession decision operating for a future fixed period of time (i.e., prospectively).
The Upper Tribunal analysed the legal mechanism for making closed period supersession decisions. It set out the relevant mechanism at paragraph 195 of its decision.
The Upper Tribunal decided a closed period supersession decision cannot be made on the ground of relevant change of circumstances, to preserve an existing award of Universal Credit (UC) or Housing Benefit (HB) where, at the date of the supersession decision, the claimant does not meet a condition of entitlement (for example, being in Great Britain). Nor, in these circumstances, can a closed period supersession be made on the ground it is anticipated a relevant change of circumstances will occur.
The Upper Tribunal confirmed that where a retrospective closed period supersession decision is made about a universal credit award, the fixed period of non-entitlement does not amount to the decision-maker making a nil award of that benefit.
The Upper Tribunal decided it was not an abuse of power for the relevant decision-maker to make the supersession decision in question about SC and about MJ, rather than wait for the claimant to return to Great Britain before making the supersession decision.
The Upper Tribunal decided that the decision made in respect of SC involved material errors of law by the relevant First-tier Tribunal. It remitted the appeal to be heard by a new Tribunal.
The Upper Tribunal decided that the decision made in respect of MJ did not involve material errors of law by the relevant First-tier Tribunal. It dismissed MJ’s appeal.