“9. Regulation 26, as it stood at the time that CU made his claim for UC, says (in summary) that the time for making a claim can be extended (by no longer than 1 month from the date the claim was actually made) if one or more of the circumstances sets out in paragraph 3 applies to the claimant AND “as a result of that circumstance or circumstances, the claimant could not reasonably have been expected to make the claim earlier.” 10. Taking my findings above and applying the law, that means the relevant circumstance relied on by CU is that set out in sub-paragraph (b): “the claimant has a disability.”
“11. I have found that the reason that CU did apply for UC sooner than he did was because he was not aware of UC and it was only after getting help from a friend that he became so aware and claimed. I looked very hard but could not find a causal connection between lower back pain and CU’s lack of knowledge of UC. Lower back pain does not cause someone to have a lack of knowledge of UC. I refer to my finding (set out above) as to why CU didn’t have knowledge of UC. That has nothing to do with back pain. It is therefore not possible for me to find on the balance of probabilities that as a result of lower back pain, CU could not reasonably have been expected to make the claim earlier. Rather, I find that CU could not reasonably have been expected to make the claim earlier because he was not aware of the existence of UC: it is reasonable for someone to not claim for something that they don’t know exists. Putting it in a different way, if CU did not have the back pain, he still would not have claimed UC any earlier – why? – because he did not know UC existed. Thus, the back pain has no causal connection to CU’s lack of knowledge of UC. 12. I agreed with MH that because CU had back pain, he found himself out of work or not being able to work as much as he would have otherwise liked and so in need of some financial assistance (by possibly claiming a benefit). Therefore, there is a causal connection between CU’s back pain and his possible need to claim a benefit [I say ‘possible need to claim a benefit’ because CU says that he went back to work on 25.2.22 [8] (which is the very day he claimed UC)]. However, I cannot go further and find that as a result of the back pain, CU did not make the claim any earlier. 13. I have taken into account CU’s wider circumstances (I have made relevant findings of fact about those) as encouraged by the UT. Those wider circumstances however do not help CU because the key test is the Regulation 26 test. Wider circumstances only have any role to play (in my view) if the key test is satisfied. This is what I think UT Jones’ meant when he said [102, §39]: “What is reasonably expected from a claimant, given the circumstances that satisfy regulation 26(3) must be assessed against the background of the claimant’s circumstances as a whole.”
“38. Furthermore, regulation 26(2)(b) makes it clear that the test is whether, as a result of the particular circumstances that brought a claimant within one or more of the categories in regulation 26(3), a claimant could not reasonably have been expected to make the claim earlier. In this case there must be a causal connection between the Appellant’s disability and the reasonableness of not making the universal credit claim at an earlier time. 39. This is not to say that a claimant's wider circumstances do not fall to be considered in any way. What was reasonably expected from a claimant, given the circumstances that satisfy regulation 26(3) must be assessed against the background of the claimant's circumstances as a whole. 40. What can reasonably be expected from a person in one set of circumstances may be different from what can reasonably be expected from a person in another. For example, what can reasonably be expected, in terms of claiming a benefit, from a person who is at the same time coping with serious flood damage to his home may be very different from what can be expected from a claimant enjoying more undisturbed domestic circumstances. 41. Nonetheless, in order to satisfy regulation 26(2)(b), a connection must exist between the circumstances that brought the claimant within regulation 26(3) and the unreasonableness of expecting him to have claimed earlier than he in fact did.”
“42. The Appellant's representative has referred to the appellant's ignorance of: (a) UC in general; and (b) the possibility of claiming that benefit by telephone in particular. 43. I, like the Secretary of State, would agree that a claimant's knowledge of the benefit system is one of the background circumstances that falls to be considered when determining what could reasonably have been expected from a person who comes within regulation 26(3). 44. However, where a person is ignorant of the means or possibility of claiming UC, "the test is whether in the whole circumstances the claimant can show that he did what any reasonable person would have done to ascertain his rights" (CSJSA/811/06 at [13]). 45. If a disabled person, with the same disability and in the claimant's wider circumstances could reasonably have been expected to have discovered UC, and the means of claiming it, and then made a claim, even one day earlier than the Appellant did (cf. R(IS) 3/01 at [18]), the time for claiming cannot be extended.”
“…. we feel that the FTT’s findings of fact provided a basis to award backdating of Universal Credit had the case law been applied correctly. The FTT indicated that they found the appellant’s evidence that he did not know about UC to be credible (e.g. in paragraphs 8d and 11). With regard to the question of whether the appellant acted in the same way a reasonable person would have been expected to act, the oral evidence that we refer to in Paragraphs 14-15 of our grounds for appeal addressed this question. However, this evidence is not acknowledged in the FTT’s decision notice.”
“14. At the FTT hearing on 03-Oct-2024 the appellant gave evidence that during the relevant period he was incapacitated and this prevented him from making a benefit claim sooner. He had last claimed benefits around 2009 when he had attended a Job Centre in person and was assisted to make a claim for Income Support. Based on his experience he believed that making a claim for benefit involved attending in person to sign on and that he might have needed a fit note. 15. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that there was a causal connection between his disability and his not claiming sooner i.e. as a result of being incapacitated by severe back pain he did not take the steps he would usually have taken to establish his benefit entitlement. This was sufficient to meet the requirements of Regulation 26 (2) (b) of the Universal Credit Claims and Payments Regulations.”
“When I got sick I could not claim benefits It’s was the last thing on my mind don’t even remember to claim due to serious back pin [ie pain].”
“I don’t know how to make claim online or trying to call benefits I couldn’t remember due constantly pin [pain].” b. GP letter (13 Jul 2022 ), p13: “[The Appellant] reports trying to contact the practice to discuss this but that he couldn’t get through on the phone line.”