“Why I have given permission to appeal 6. Having listened to the entirety of the recording of the hearing of your appeal, I am not persuaded that it is arguable that the judge who heard your appeal coached the Respondent’s representative or otherwise acted in a way that was, or which a reasonable person might consider to be, biased: the judge merely sought to clarify, at the end of a 2 hour hearing, the cases being advanced by each party. That was a proper and helpful thing to do. I note that you have made criticisms of the conduct of the hearing including the making of adjustments to accommodate you. It is clear from the recording that there were a couple of instances where the screen on the computer from which you were accessing the palantypists’ feed became locked, but you rightly alerted the judge to this and he rightly paused proceedings so that you could regain access. I note also that the judge was very careful to invite you to make him aware of any problems with hearing or understanding, he offered you the opportunity to take breaks, and he conducted the hearing in a way which was designed to maximise all parties’ ability to participate in proceedings. 7. However, I am persuaded that it is arguable with a realistic (as opposed to fanciful) prospect of success that the judge may have erred in his interpretation of regulation 46(3) of theUniversal Credit Regulations 2013 , or in the way he applied that provision to the facts of your case. 8. Regulation 46(3) provides that any sums that are paid “regularly and by reference to a period” are to be treated as income even if they would, apart from that provision, be regarded as capital or as having a capital element. 9. The records from HMRC which the Respondent relied upon describe the payments made from your SIPP as “irregular”
“- From29 November 2022 to13 June 2023 , [the claimant] received 15 payments from SIPPDEAL. The payments were paid at periodical intervals. The gaps between payments was generally small, ranging around 6 to 11 days apart. Only one set of contiguous payments was separated by more than one month (the payments made on4 April 2023 and6 June 2023 ). - Although the amounts did fluctuate, they did not vary wildly. The amounts ranged from£450 to£2,500 , with the majority of payments falling within the£950 to£2,000 bracket. - The payments from29 November 2022 to13 June 2023 totalled£21,550 , or an average of£109.94 per day/£3298.46 per (30 calendar day) month. This represented a constant and steady stream of income designed to assist [the claimant] in meeting his living costs at the relevant time.” 11. It was arguably not open to the judge to find that the payments were “regular” and paid “by reference to a period” for the purposes of regulation 46(3) of theUniversal Credit Regulations 2013 . 12. If the judge did indeed err in the way I say that he might have done, such an error would be material because, had the error not been made, the outcome of the appeal could have been different. 13. This warrants a grant of permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. My grant of permission is unrestricted.” “- From29 November 2022 to13 June 2023 , [the claimant] received 15 payments from SIPPDEAL. The payments were paid at periodical intervals. The gaps between payments was generally small, ranging around 6 to 11 days apart. Only one set of contiguous payments was separated by more than one month (the payments made on4 April 2023 and6 June 2023 ). - Although the amounts did fluctuate, they did not vary wildly. The amounts ranged from£450 to£2,500 , with the majority of payments falling within the£950 to£2,000 bracket. - The payments from29 November 2022 to13 June 2023 totalled£21,550 , or an average of£109.94 per day/£3298.46 per (30 calendar day) month. This represented a constant and steady stream of income designed to assist [the claimant] in meeting his living costs at the relevant time.”