British child living with her mother in the UK will not be entitled to DLA if her father is living and working in another EU State – recent ruling by Upper Tribunal.

26 Mar 2020 | William Ford

Table of Contents

In AH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] UKUT 53 (AAC), the claimant and her parents are British citizens.  The parents separated in 2011 but are not divorced.  The father moved to live and work in Belgium.  In October 2013, the Claimant (the daughter) claimed Disability Living Allowance (DLA) when she was four years old.  The care component was awarded at the middle rate, but the award was later removed when the DWP became aware that the claimant’s father was living and working in Belgium.

The DWP issued a decision that in these circumstances there was no entitlement to DLA under section 72(7B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which provides that where the EU coordination rules apply, someone will not be entitled to an award of the care component of DLA unless the UK is the competent State to pay ‘sickness benefit’ (which is how the care component of DLA is classified under EU law).

The First-tier Tribunal allowed the claimant’s appeal against the decision on the basis that DLA should continue to be paid on a provisional basis, as the evidence showed that there was a dispute as to whether Belgium was the competent State.  The Secretary of State appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

Under Regulation (EC) 883/2004 the general rule is that the place where the claimant is in gainful employment or self-employment is the competent State (Art 11(3)(a)).  But for those who are not economically active, it is normally the State of residence (Art 11(3)(e)). The Upper Tribunal held an oral hearing to consider the position where a family member has competing derived rights, from both parents but on a different basis.  Here, the UK was the competent State for the mother based on residence.  But for the father the competent State was Belgium based on him being self-employed.

The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and held that the evidence from Belgium authorities did not go so far as to show a difference of views [19].  They went on to uphold the original decision to refuse DLA to the claimant.  UTJ Jacobs said the term “insured person” in Article 1(c) was intended to be a broad one and it covered the full range of potential social security claimants [28].

The Judge accepted the claimant’s argument that the issue of which right took priority could not be determined by the priority rules in Article 32, as these only deal with sickness benefits in kind [31].  The Judge however concluded that Article 21, on the payment of cash benefits, overrode the claimant’s right to benefit based on her mother.

Article 21 provides that an “insured person and members of his family” shall be entitled to cash benefits provided by the competent institution”.  The Judge said the “obvious purpose” of Article 21 was “to ensure that all members of the family can look to one State for their sickness benefits” [26].  Giving priority to the father based on his place of work would be consistent with the need for a claimant being subject to the legislation of one State only.  The Judge said that while this approach put the focus on an ‘insured person’ as an employed or self-employed person, this was consistent with the structure of Article 11, which gives priority to the place where a person is pursuing an activity as a self-employed or employed person under Article 11(3)(a) over the place where someone is resident in Article 11(3)(e) [34].

The Upper Tribunal also rejected the argument that section 72(7B) of the SSCBA 1992 put the claimant and her mother at a substantial disadvantage compared to cases in which a family pursued all of their activities in a single State [38].  The Judge held that the claimant’s challenge to s.72(7B) was “ultimately a financial one” but this conflicted with CJEU case-law to the effect that EU law cannot guarantee to an insured person that moving to another Member State will be neutral in terms of social security [39].  The Upper Tribunal also rejected an argument based on the general principle in EU law that the interests of a child should prevail could not be used to “subvert the core structure of Regulation 883/2004” [46], which is a carefully constructed set of conflict of law provisions.

Our client is considering an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

William Ford, Partner, Osbornes Law instructed barrister Adrian Berry and Desmond Rutledge from Garden Court Chambers “This is a disappointing decision that will cause significant hardship for my client and her family. We are now actively considering an  appeal to the Court of Appeal”

For full transcript of the decision in AH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] UKUT 53 (AAC) click here.

Share this article


Contact us today

For a free initial conversation call 020 7485 8811

Email us Send us an email and we’ll get back to you

    More from WilliamVIEW ALL

    1. 13.9.2023

      Successful homelessness judicial review case against Redbridge Council

      This matter involved a claim in the High Court for judicial review against Redbridge Council for failure to comply with...

      Read more
    2. Man is making audit of household expenses

      Success in Court of Appeal in child disability...

      The Court of Appeal has today handed judgment in the case of Harrington v Secretary of State for Work and...

      Read more
    3. Churchill Gardens neighborhood in Pimlico

      High Court finds Westminster Council’s Housing Scheme...

      Westminster City Council’s housing allocation scheme found to be unlawful The High Court has today handed down judgment finding...

      Read more
    4. East London aerial view

      Housing allocation case questions lawfulness of council’s...

      Until February 2022, the social housing allocation scheme for the London Borough of Newham allowed people who lived outside the borough...

      Read more
    5. High Court of Justice, London, UK

      Legacy benefits uplift: appeal granted by Court of...

      On 18 February 2022 the High Court dismissed the case brought by Osbornes on behalf of 4 claimants challenging the governments failure to...

      Read more
    6. signing document

      EU Nationals with Pre-Settled Status entitled to benefits...

      Court Judgment means EU Nationals with Pre-Settled Status can access benefits and housing On 18 December 2020 the Court of Appeal handed...

      Read more
    7. 22.12.2020

      Osbornes applying to Supreme Court in housing possession...

      In the case of Gateway Housing Association –v- Begum (2) the Court of Appeal recently decided that a tenant must leave...

      Read more
    8. london apartments

      Housing disrepair issues resolved after three years

      Osbornes were instructed on behalf of a disabled tenant who had been decanted from her temporary accommodation for some three...

      Read more
    9. 24.11.2020

      Is the delay in the Renters Reform Bill...

      There have been issues tenants have faced for a long time before pandemic; namely no fault evictions and the other...

      Read more
    10. 20.11.2020

      Up Up and away to the First Tier...

      This year we assisted in written representations for a welfare benefit case in the Upper Tribunal. This is a Housing...

      Read more
    11. 20.11.2020

      You are homeless because you are in shared...

      It is well established that shared facilities are not suitable for families with children as long term accommodation. The client...

      Read more
    12. 29.4.2020

      Case news: Housing benefit decision addresses issue of...

      The background You might be forgiven for thinking that the question of whether a course is full time or part...

      Read more
    13. london house

      I have a disrepair issue can I withhold...

      Withholding rent is not your best course of action. I see the logic in using the non-payment of rent as...

      Read more
    14. 6.11.2019

      Universal Credit Claims and Personal Injury Compensation

      The general rule on entitlement to Universal Credit is that a person is not entitled if they have capital of...

      Read more
    15. 5.9.2019

      Possession – A New Dawn!

      On 21st July 2019 the Government launched a consultation to seek views on implementing their decision to remove section 21 of the...

      Read more
    16. 25.3.2019

      Homelessness- The suitability of bed and breakfast accommodation

      There is tremendous pressure on local authorities to house individuals and families for many reasons including unaffordable private rents and...

      Read more
    17. 29.1.2019

      Anti-Social Behaviour Injunctions

      Landlords have the option to bring an injunction against tenants in the event they are committing anti-social behaviour. The injunction...

      Read more
    18. 5.11.2018

      Court of Appeal Clarifies the Definition of ‘Landlord’

      It is now not uncommon for home owners to enter into company let agreements with property companies who are authorised...

      Read more
    19. street

      How to deal with a Closure Order and...

      Over the last three years since the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 came into force Local Authorities and other...

      Read more