Upper Tribunal Judge Kate Markus QC REFUSES me permission to appeal Judge Verman‘s First Tier Tribunal decision of 8th May 2017, concerning the 3 month period of early June 2015 to early September 2015, when my daughter started living with me again, (Child Benefit 2nd Appeal).
Upper Tribunal Judge Kate Markus QC gives the following REASONS:
- The Upper Tribunal will grant permission to appeal only if there is a realistic prospect that the First-tier Tribunal’s (FTT’s) decision was wrong in law, or if exceptionally there is some other good reason to grant permission. The Upper Tribunal must respect the fact-finding role of the FTT [sole panel member Judge Mrs J. Verman]. If that tribunal has approached the task of fact-finding in a rational manner, has given an adequate explanation for its decision, has properly understood and applied the law, and has acted fairly, then the Upper Tribunal cannot interfere.
- The Applicant takes issue with many aspects of the FTT’s findings of fact. However, there was no arguable error of law by the FTT [sole panel member Judge Mrs J. Verman] in making its findings of fact. Its findings of fact were supported by the evidence which was provided to the FTT, it made a rational decision in the light of its findings of fact, and it provided a clear explanation for its decision.
- The Applicant also submits that the hearing was conducted unfairly. She has not identified any aspect of her case which was unable to present. Moreover the evidential basis on which the father was awarded child benefit would not have been relevant because, for the reasons that I set out below, the FTT [sole panel member Judge Mrs J. Verman] had no jurisdiction to go behind his award in respect of the period prior to the claim and for 3 weeks after it. In this case that covered the whole period in respect of which the Applicant had appealed.
- This then takes me to the fundamental obstacle which her case faces. Pursuant to the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (SSAA) section 13 and regulation 38 of the Child Benefit (General) Regulations 2006, the Applicant could not be entitled to child benefit before 7 September 2015. That was the effect of those provisions regardless of any finding that the FTT might have made as to whether the father was entitled to child benefit prior to that date, because it was not open to the FTT [sole panel member Judge Mrs J. Verman] in these proceedings to make a decision as to whether he had been entitled to child benefit which had already been paid. This was made clear by Judge Wikeley in a previous appeal concerning the same parties: CB v HMRC and AE (CHB)  UKUT 0506 (AAC), citing CF/[redacted]. Moreover, by reason of paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, the priority given to the father’s claim continued for three weeks after the date of the Applicant’s claim. The result was that the Applicant could not have been entitled to child benefit prior to 7 September 2015. That is what the Secretary of State decided.
- For this reason, even if the FTT [sole panel member Judge Mrs J. Verman] erred in its approach to section 143(2), such error was not arguably material.
- Therefore I refuse permission to appeal because I do not consider that there is a realistic prospect that the Applicant will be able to show that the First-tier Tribunal [sole panel member Judge Mrs J. Verman] made a material error of law, and there is no other reason for giving permission.
Ahead of the FTT, Judge Keith Wilding, and Judge Miss J. R. Beale both FAILED/REFUSED to obtain my daughter’s mobile phone records/tracking data, which would have proven conclusively that my daughter went nowhere near her dad’s house for several weeks, and was instead residing with me for the material period.
On 8th May 2017, Judge J. Verman FAILED/REFUSED TO ALLOW ME TO QUESTION THE RESPONDENT(S), or to request Directions.