51茶馆

Read the full decision in .

Judicial Summary

The Upper Tribunal allowed the claimant鈥檚 appeals because the First-tier Tribunal erred in law in treating the claimant鈥檚 withdrawals from his self-invested personal pension as 鈥渋ncome鈥� for the purposes of Regulation 46(3) of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013.

The withdrawals were not characterised by the operation of any definite principle. They were not 鈥渟teady鈥� or 鈥渦niform鈥�, and they were not repeated at 鈥渇ixed times鈥� or at 鈥渦niform intervals鈥�. It was not, therefore, open to the First-tier Tribunal to conclude that the payments were 鈥渞egular鈥� and 鈥渂y reference to a period鈥�, falling to be treated as 鈥渋ncome鈥� under Regulation 46(3).

The Upper Tribunal set aside and remade the decisions.