header-logo header-logo

Social Security and Child Support (Supersession of Appeal Decisions) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1267)

15 May 2012
Categories: Legislation
printer mail-detail

These Regulations reinstate powers to change decisions made by the social security appeal tribunals and the Child Support and Social Security Commissioners before their functions transferred to the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunals.

Commencement date
4 June 2012

Legislation Affected

SI 2001/1002, SI 1999/991, SI 1996/2907, SI 1992/1813 amended


Summary

Purpose

The Secretary of State, local authorities and the Child Maintenace and Enforcement Commission will now have the power to change decisions made under the old as well as the new regime.

Decision changes are usually made to reflect a change in the claimant’s circumstances since the tribunal made its decision.

Background

In November 2008 the Ministry of Justice legislated to abolish the social security appeal tribunals and the Child Support and Social Security Commissioners and transferred their functions to the new appeals system: the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal.

While the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Order 2008,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll