Appeal No. UA-2025-000089-PIP
Between:
SI (formerly EC)
Appellant
- v –
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Respondent
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Ward
Decided on consideration of the papers
Representation (papers only):
Appellant: Matthew Hall, London Irish Centre
Respondent: Jessica Coleman, Decision Making and Appeals
On appeal from:
Tribunal: First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
Digital Case No.: 1722995991229729
Tribunal Venue: In Chambers
Decision Date: 2 December 2024
DECISION
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal.
REASONS FOR DECISION
In Form UT1, the Appellant sought permission to appeal against a decision dated 10 January 2025. That however was a decision refusing permission to appeal against a previous decision, dated 2 December 2024. That decision had struck out under rules 8(3)(c) and 8(2)(a) of the First-tier Tribunal’s rules the Appellant’s attempted appeal against an earlier decision (as to which, see below). It is the decision of 2 December 2024 which is properly the subject of an appeal, not the decision refusing permission to appeal against it.
I cannot improve upon the summary of the facts given by the judge in the decision of 2 December 2024 (though the paragraph numbering is adrift):
On 6th August 2024, the appellant sought to appeal against a decision taken by the DWP on 25th June 2019 and heard before a Tribunal 13th July 2021.
On 5th September 2024, the DWP/respondent sought to have the appeal struck out in the following terms: "The appellant has had the refusal decision and would need to progress this to the upper tribunal. However, as the decision was made over 13 months ago, the appellant would be out of time for the upper tribunal. In view of the above, I submit that this appeal should be struck-out, as it has no reasonable prospect of success. I refer this case to the First-tier Tribunal under rule 8(3) (c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008"
Directions were issued by the Tribunal on 11th September 2024, informing the appellant of the above and providing a warning to them that the appeal may be struck out in accordance with Rule 8 of the 2008 Tribunal Rules. The appellant was directed to provide a response within 28 days. She was also informed that if she failed to provide a response within the required timeframe the appeal would also be struck out in accordance with Rule 8(3)(a) of the 2008 Tribunal Procedure Rules.
There was no response by the appellant to the directions issued by the Tribunal within the required time frame.
The appeal was struck out by the Tribunal on 21st October 2024 under Rule 8(3)(a) of the TPR for failure to comply with Tribunal directions where it had been stated that striking out may so result.
On 23rd October and 6th November 2024, the appellant submitted a request for a reinstatement of her appeal.
DECISION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS
This request has also been treated by the Tribunal as a request by the appellant for the decision of the Legal Officer dated 21st October 2024 to be reconsidered by a Tribunal Judge in accordance with Rule 4(3) of the TPR.
I have confirmed the decision of the Legal Officer. There was no response by the appellant to the strike out notification directions of 11th September 2024 and therefore the appeal was struck out appropriately under Rule 8(3)(a).
In the alternative, having considered the documentation, I am satisfied that this appeal should also be struck out as stated above under Rule 8(3)(c) on the grounds that it has no reasonable prospects of success and Rule 8(2)(a) that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this matter again.
It is common ground between the parties that the appellant's appeal against the decision of the DWP of June 2019 was heard before the Tribunal in July 2021. A challenge to this Tribunal decision bearing reference SC948/21/00141 may only be by way of an application for permission to appeal to the Tribunal in accordance with Part 4 Rules 37- 40 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules. This is an out of time application which the appellant will need to make, if so minded in accordance with the information which would have been provided by the tribunal by way of covering letter to the Tribunal appeal decision notice in respect of that appeal.
In relation however to this appeal however, I am satisfied that the appeal has no reasonable prospects of success for the reasons stated above and that it is outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It must therefore be struck out in accordance with Rule 8(2)(a) and Rule 8(3)(c) of the TPR. There is no discretion on the part of the Tribunal.
In short, the Appellant had been warned that unless she complied with the First-tier Tribunal’s Directions, her attempted appeal would be struck out. She did not comply and it was. Further, she was attempting to appeal again to the First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) about a matter which it had already decided about. As a matter of law that is not possible: once the FtT has performed its functions, it has no further jurisdiction to consider a further appeal against the same decision.
On 14 February 2025, Upper Tribunal Judge West refused permission to appeal.
On 17 April 2025 the Upper Tribunal received an email from the Appellant intimating an intention to issue judicial review proceedings against the refusal of permission to appeal. Judge West treated that as an application to have the refusal of permission to appeal set aside.
The judge caused enquiries to be made which appeared to suggest that the case decided in July 2021 involved a person who was believed to be a different claimant (EC), with the same date of birth and the same NI number. He also noted that the date of decision which it was sought to appeal against was stated on Form SSC1 as 30 July 2024.
On that basis, the judge concluded on 27 May 2025 there was a material error of fact in the ruling of 2 December 2024 and set aside his refusal of permission. He proceeded to give permission to appeal on the sole ground that for the reasons set out in his ruling relating to the apparent confusion of the Appellant with another claimant and/or the date of decision under appeal there might be a realistic prospect that the FtT had erred in law and/or that there had been a procedural error.
On 21 July 2025 the Respondent filed a submission explaining that the Appellant, SI, was formerly known as EC. Her name was legally changed on 3 September 2021 but the change of name deed was not received by the DWP until 18 March 2024. The decision under appeal is that dated 13 July 2021. Accordingly, the FtT’s striking-out rulings had been made on the basis of the correct evidence and there had been no error of law.
On 12 September 2025 a Notice of Acting, signed by the Appellant, was received from the London Irish Centre’s Information and Advice Team.
On 18 September Mr Hall of the London Irish Centre emailed the Upper Tribunal, copying in the Appellant, saying “The Appellant has no further comment or observations to make in response to the Secretary of State’s submissions and is content for the Upper Tribunal to make such decision as it sees fit based on the evidence before it.” This was reiterated by Mr Hall on 16 October, once again copying in the Appellant, following a reminder - unnecessary, given that Mr Hall had already replied - from the Upper Tribunal office.
I consider on the evidence before me it is quite clear – and indeed is undisputed – that the person formerly known as EC and now known as SI are one and the same person and that the appeal decided in July 2021 was hers. There is no evidence of any separate decision appealable to the FtT dated 30 July 2024.
As the sole ground on which Judge West gave permission to appeal was in relation to any arguable error of law and/or procedural irregularity caused by either or both of those factors, the appeal is dismissed.
Christopher Ward
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Authorised by the Judge for issue on 19 November 2025