Kuzelova v London Borough of Barnet & Anor (Housing benefit - temporary absence; recovery of overpayments; Supersession - general) [2026] UKUT 272 (AAC) (16 July 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, found the First-tier Tribunal had made a material error of law, set aside the tribunal decision, and remade it in the appellant’s favour. It held that the London Borough of Barnet’s 7 August 2020 decisions wrongly treated the appellant as ineligible for Housing Benefit from 25 May 2020 and wrongly found a recoverable overpayment, because her entitlement resumed by 8 June 2020 and the pre-Brexit EU-law discrimination point required disapplication of the less generous absence rule for the earlier period.

Key points

• Parties: Michaela Kuzelova v London Borough of Barnet and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
• Holding: appeal allowed; First-tier Tribunal decision set aside for material error of law and remade under s12 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
• Reasoning: the tribunal should have considered whether entitlement existed on the date of the local authority decision, i.e. whether a closed-period supersession was required.
• Housing Benefit rules distinguished absences within Great Britain (13 weeks) and outside Great Britain (4 weeks); the tribunal found entitlement ceased on 25 May 2020 but resumed on 8 June 2020 because of the son’s illness.
• EU-law point: for 25 May to 7 June 2020, the discriminatory effect of the post-2016 absence rules on EU migrant workers was not objectively justified, so those provisions were disapplied in the appellant’s case.
• No sanctions/export-control issue appears in the judgment; the relevance is indirect, through EU-law treatment of a migrant worker and public-benefit entitlement.

Why it matters

This is a benefits-law decision, not a sanctions or export-control case, but it shows how post-Brexit legal transitions and EU-law discrimination analysis can affect UK administrative decisions. For sovereign-risk and compliance audiences, it is a reminder that domestic rules affecting EU migrant workers may still be vulnerable where the relevant period predates the change in the UK’s EU-law position.

Implications

Local authorities and litigants must assess entitlement as of the decision date and consider whether a benefit termination should be framed as a closed-period supersession rather than a simple cessation. The ruling also weakens overpayment recovery where entitlement is later found to have continued or resumed, and it underscores the need to test any differential treatment of EU migrant workers against objective-justification standards for pre-Brexit periods.