The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v SC

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v SC

A closed period supersession decision cannot be made prospectively to preserve an existing award of Universal Credit or Housing Benefit where, at the date of the supersession decision, the claimant does not meet a condition of entitlement. The only lawful course is to supersede the award on the ground of a relevant change of circumstances, ending entitlement. It is not an abuse of power for the decision-maker to act at that time. The legislative framework and case law do not support the creation of a nil award or the use of anticipated change of circumstances to preserve entitlement in these circumstances.

Parties
Appellant/respondent (in Both Appeals): The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Respondent (in SSWP V Sc): SC; Appellant (in MJ V LB Bromley and Sswp): MJ; First Respondent (in MJ V LB Bromley and Sswp): London Borough of Bromley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (upper Tribunal, Administrative Appeals Chamber) / Judgment on Appeal From First Tier Tribunal Decisions
Outcome
SC: First-tier Tribunal decision set aside and remitted for rehearing by a new Tribunal. MJ: Appeal dismissed; First-tier Tribunal decision upheld.
Legal Topics
Universal Credit, Housing Benefit, Supersession of Benefit Decisions, Closed Period Supersession, Change of Circumstances, Abuse of Power, Disability Discrimination (referenced But Not Determined)
Social Security Law Administrative Law Universal Credit Housing Benefit Supersession of Benefit Decisions Closed Period Supersession Change of Circumstances Abuse of Power +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Appellant/respondent (in Both Appeals)

SC

Respondent (in SSWP V Sc)

MJ

Appellant (in MJ V LB Bromley and Sswp)

London Borough of Bromley

First Respondent (in MJ V LB Bromley and Sswp)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (upper Tribunal, Administrative Appeals Chamber) / Judgment on Appeal From First Tier Tribunal Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a closed period supersession decision can be made prospectively to preserve an existing award of Universal Credit or Housing Benefit where, at the date of the supersession decision, the claimant does not meet a condition of entitlement.
  2. 2 Whether it is an abuse of power for the decision-maker to supersede the benefit award immediately rather than wait for the claimant to return to Great Britain.
  3. 3 Whether a closed period supersession can be made on the ground that it is anticipated a relevant change of circumstances will occur.

Ratio Decidendi

A closed period supersession decision cannot be made prospectively to preserve an existing award of Universal Credit or Housing Benefit where, at the date of the supersession decision, the claimant does not meet a condition of entitlement. The only lawful course is to supersede the award on the ground of a relevant change of circumstances, ending entitlement. It is not an abuse of power for the decision-maker to act at that time. The legislative framework and case law do not support the creation of a nil award or the use of anticipated change of circumstances to preserve entitlement in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

SC: First-tier Tribunal decision set aside and remitted for rehearing by a new Tribunal. MJ: Appeal dismissed; First-tier Tribunal decision upheld.

Orders

  • SC's case remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration at an oral hearing before a new Tribunal, not involving the previous judge.
  • The new Tribunal must not list SC’s appeal until the Upper Tribunal’s decisions in UA-2023-001431-USTA and KK v SSWP (UC) [2025] UKUT 259 (AAC) are published.