Paterson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (CLAIMS AND PAYMENTS - UNIVERSAL CREDIT) [2026] UKUT 147 (AAC) (13 April 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal allowed Mr Paterson’s appeal, held that the First-tier Tribunal had made an error of law, set its decision aside, and remitted the case for a fresh oral hearing. The dispute was whether his universal credit claim date could be treated as the earlier date when he telephoned the DWP helpline, rather than the later date when he completed an electronic claim with Jobcentre assistance.

Key points

• Parties: Martin Paterson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; appeal concerned universal credit claim dating/backdating.
• Holding: FTT erred by not making necessary factual findings on whether the telephone call was a valid claim under regulations 8 and 10.
• Alternative holding: even if the electronic claim was the first valid claim, FTT failed to find when the claimant first notified the need for assistance.
• Reasoning: the tribunal needed findings on whether the helpline call fell within telephone-claim exceptions and whether enough information was provided during that call.
• Outcome: UT allowed the appeal, set aside the FTT decision, and remitted the case to a differently constituted FTT for reconsideration.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: none apparent; the case is about social security claim timing, not restrictive measures or national security controls.

Why it matters

This decision matters because it shows the UT requiring fact-specific analysis before fixing a benefit claim date where a claimant says an earlier telephone contact should count. For sanctions or national security audiences, it has no direct substantive link, but it is a reminder that administrative decisions can turn on whether assistance or notice was given at an earlier stage.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the key point is that decision-makers must make explicit findings on the nature of any telephone contact, what information was provided, and when assistance was first requested or needed. Where those factual issues are left unresolved, the resulting decision is vulnerable on appeal and may be remitted for a full rehearing.