Appeal No. UA-2025-001220-AA
Between:
FD (appointee ML) | Appellant |
and | |
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions | Respondent |
THE UPPER TRIBUNAL ORDERS that, without the permission of this Tribunal: No one shall publish or reveal the name or address of FD or ML, who are the Appellant in these proceedings and her appointee, or any information that would be likely to lead to the identification of any of them or any member of their family in connection with these proceedings. Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment that may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine. |
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs
Decided on 18 March 2026 without a hearing.
Representation:
Claimant: ML
Secretary of State: DMA Leeds
On appeal from: the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
Reference: | SC242/23/05365 |
Decision date: | 11 March 2025 |
Hearing: | On paper |
Summary: European Union law – Council Regulations 1408/71/EC and (EC) 883/2004 (14.6)
Claimant had pre-settled status and was habitually resident – claim for attendance allowance in February 2023 – Secretary of State decided that United Kingdom was not the competent State, but conceded before the Upper Tribunal that it was – case remitted to the Secretary of State to decide entitlement.
Decision of Upper Tribunal
As the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error in point of law, it is SET ASIDE under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the case is RE-MADE.
The decision is: the United Kingdom is the competent State under Article 11(3)(e) of Regulation 883/2004 in respect of FD's claim for an attendance allowance. The Secretary of State will now decide her entitlement, if any, under that claim.
Reasons for Decision
The claimant appealed against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal. The Secretary of State’s representative has supported the appeal, saying that there was an error of law in the tribunal’s decision and inviting the Upper Tribunal to re-make the decision rather than remit the case to the tribunal for rehearing. There being no objection, I have accepted the Secretary of State’s submission and re-made the decision.
It is sufficient to say that the Secretary of State has relied on the decision of the Upper Tribunal in SE v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2024] UKUT 405 (AAC).
Authorised for issue | Edward Jacobs |