188体育

Read the full decision in .

Judicial Summary

In this appeal the Upper Tribunal considers the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (鈥淯C Regulations鈥�) and the Social Security (Medical Evidence) Regulations 1976 (鈥淢edical Evidence Regulations鈥�) and decides that: a. regulation 28(2)(b) of the UC Regulations does not preclude a self-certification from starting the 3-month waiting period before a claimant may be entitled to the LCWRA element of Universal Credit, b. it was 鈥渦nreasonable鈥� (for the purposes of regulation 2(1A) of the Medical Evidence Regulations) for the Secretary of State to require the Claimant to provide a medical certificate in accordance with Part I of Schedule 1 to the Medical Evidence Regulations in circumstances where she had made a note in her UC journal asking whether she needed to provide a medical certificate given that she was unavailable for work because of her responsibilities as a carer to her disabled daughter and that query had gone unanswered, c. the Claimant鈥檚 report that she was suffering from health problems that affected her ability to work and was in receipt of PIP, together with the Fit Note she provided on 24 February 2022 (speaking to the period from 14 April 2021) amounted to 鈥渟uch other evidence as may be sufficient to show that [the Claimant was] incapable of work or [had] limited capability for work so that [she] should refrain鈥� from work by reason of some specific disease or bodily disablement or mental disability鈥� for the purposes of regulation 2(1A) of the Medical Evidence Regulations. The 鈥榖ackdated鈥� Fit Note served to 鈥榖ridge the gap鈥� between the Claimant鈥檚 initial self-certification and the date on which the Fit Note was provided. The FtT Decision is re-made, allowing the appeal, setting aside the Secretary of State鈥檚 decision, and deciding that the 鈥渞elevant period鈥� for the purposes of regulation 28 of the UC Regulations commenced on 17 April 2021 (and not 24 February 2022, as previously decided).