Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2010 UKUT 4 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	CJSA 2280 2009
Appellant:	Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Respondent:	JB
Judge/Commissioner:	Other Judges / Other Commissioners/Deputy Commissioners
Date Of Decision:	06/01/2010
Date Added:	04/02/2010
Main Category:	Jobseekers allowance
Main Subcategory:	other
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Reported as [2010] AACR 25. Failure to comply with jobseeking conditions – prescribed period for benefit sanction – whether “preceding 12 months” calculated from date of determination or date of relevant conduct The claimant was in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance, and on two occasions within a 12 months period acted so as to give rise to one of the circumstances in section 19(5) of the Jobseekers Act 1995, in which the allowance is not to be payable for such period as may be prescribed. Regulation 69(1)(a) of the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996 prescribes a period of two weeks in any case that is not otherwise prescribed for under regulation 69(1). Regulation 69(1)(b)(i) prescribes a period of four weeks where on a previous occasion the jobseeker’s allowance was determined not to be payable in circumstances falling within section 19(5) and “the first date on which the jobseeker’s allowance was not payable to [the claimant] on that previous occasion falls within the period of 12 months preceding the date of the determination mentioned in (b)(i) above”. The regulation goes on to provide for a period of 26 weeks’ non-payment where there have been two previous determinations in that 12 months period. A sanction was first imposed on the claimant in December 2008, when it was determined that the allowance should not be paid for two weeks. In February 2009 the Secretary of State considered events in October 2008 and decided that the sanction required for that was a four-week sanction. The claimant appealed and the First-tier Tribunal determined that the appropriate sanction was only two weeks because in October 2008 there had been no previous sanction. The tribunal held that the question of whether or not there was a previous occasion on which the allowance had been determined not to be payable was to be judged at the date of the claimant’s refusal, not at the date of the Secretary of State’s decision, and observed that on the Secretary of State’s interpretation, three refusals in one day would result in a 32-week sanction straight away. The Secretary of State appealed to the Upper Tribunal. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. regulation 69(1)(b) is clear that the date from which the 12 months is to be measured is the first date on which the jobseeker’s allowance was not payable as a result of the previous determination, and it is to be measured to the date of the determination under consideration (paragraphs 8 and 9); 2. even if three separate sanctions were imposed in one day for three refusals by a claimant, that would be unlikely to result in a 32-week sanction straight away, since the prescribed period would normally only begin after the date of the decisions (see regulation 69(2)), so that the first date on which the allowance was not payable under the first decision would come after, and not before, the date of the second and third determinations (paragraph 10).
Decision(s) to Download:	[2010] AACR 25 bv.doc