Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2015 UKUT 373 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	CJSA 1408 2013
Appellant:	CH
Respondent:	Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (JSA)
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge C G Ward
Date Of Decision:	01/07/2015
Date Added:	15/07/2015
Main Category:	Jobseekers allowance
Main Subcategory:	other
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Reported as [2016] AACR 28. Jobseeker’s allowance – standard form of jobseeker’s agreement 2012 – non compliance with Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996 – effect must be given to the rights a claimant ought to have been advised about When claiming jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) in 2012 the claimant refused to sign a jobseeker’s agreement on the basis that, among other things, it failed to address his disabilities. For this reason the Secretary of State decided that he was not entitled to either ordinary JSA payments or hardship payments and the First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) upheld both decisions on appeal. The claimant appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT) and among the issues before it was whether the jobseeker’s agreement met the legal requirement under regulation 31 of the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996 to notify a claimant of his rights, the consequences if it did not, and the mechanisms for dealing with disputes, particularly those occasioned by the claimant’s disability. The Secretary of State initially accepted that the F-tT had erred regarding the hardship appeal and eventually effectively conceded both appeals. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. the jobseeker’s agreement failed to comply with regulation 31(g) as it made no reference to the claimant’s right under section 9(6) and (7) of the Jobseekers Act 1995 to require a referral to be made to a decision-maker who (a) had the power to decide that compliance with the proposed agreement would be unreasonable and to direct that it be changed and (b) that the right of referral arose prior to the claimant signing the agreement (paragraph 28); 2. the purpose of regulation 31(g) was to ensure that claimants had been informed of their right to have a proposed jobseeker’s agreement looked at by someone other than the employment officer and the claimant should have been given the chance to have his reservations about the proposed jobseeker’s agreement considered by the person envisaged by the legislation (paragraphs 31 to 33); 3. there was no evidence of a distinct adjudication mechanism, via section 9(6), for the disputed content of the jobseeker’s agreement to be the subject of a decision by the decision-maker (paragraph 34); 4. the F-tT erred in law insofar as it failed to find that the jobseeker’s agreement had wrongfully failed to refer to the correct procedure and that the claimant’s dispute did not receive the consideration provided for by law (paragraph 40); 5. the Secretary of State conceded that even if the claimant were not to succeed on his reference under section 9(6) and application under section 9(7)(c), he would be entitled to the hardship allowance and that the F-tT erred in law by failing to rule on the hardship appeal (paragraph 45). The judge set aside both decisions of the F-tT, referred the proposed jobseeker’s agreement to the Secretary of State for determination and allowed the appeal against the refusal of payments of the hardship allowance.
Decision(s) to Download:	[2016] AACR 28ws.doc