{"id":574693,"date":"2026-04-16T04:17:59","date_gmt":"2026-04-16T02:17:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-v-jt-uc\/"},"modified":"2026-04-16T04:17:59","modified_gmt":"2026-04-16T02:17:59","slug":"secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-v-jt-uc","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-v-jt-uc\/","title":{"rendered":"Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v JT (UC)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1. The case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration at an oral hearing. 2. The new First-tier Tribunal should not include the tribunal judge previously involved in considering this appeal. 3. The Department of Work and Pensions should be represented at the hearing by a Presenting Officer. 4. The new First-tier Tribunal is not bound in any way by the decision of the previous tribunal or be any statement of fact in this decision. These Directions may be supplemented by later directions by a Tribunal Legal Officer, Registrar or Judge in the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. REASONS FOR DECISION 1. I have to set this decision aside because the Tribunal did not give adequate reasons for its decision. A statement of reasons is adequate if it tells the parties why they won or lost, in sufficient detail to show whether the tribunal applied the law correctly. 2. The claimant is a man who suffers from a number of medical conditions. His father has acted as his representative. It is not in dispute that the claimant claimed Universal Credit (UC) in September 2019. That claim was rejected on the grounds that the claimant was in full time education, and is not relevant to this appeal. It is also agreed that the claimant claimed UC again on 16 April 2021 and was awarded it with retrospective effect to the date of the claim. The issue is whether he also claimed UC on 8 May 2020, with the result that the award should be backdated to that date. 3. It appears that a claim for UC was made on 8 May 2020 in a name the same as or similar to the claimant\u2019s. I shall refer to that claim as the \u201c2020 claim\u201d and the person in whose name the claim was made as the \u201c2020 claimant\u201d, without prejudging the question whether the 2020 claimant was the same person as the claimant in this appeal. 4. The history subsequent to the April 2021 claim is that the backdated award was made on 17 December 2021. It appears that in the meantime, on 4 October 2021, the Department for Work and Pensions had written to the claimant referring to a note posted on the portal on 17 September 2021; this stated that he had made his application in May 2020 but had not received any payment and referred to cancellation of appointments owing to COVID-19. The letter went on to refer to the claim being with the Specialist Risk Review team and to phone calls and postings on the journal. It apologised for the delay and gave an address to which the claimant could write if he was unhappy with the response. 5. The claimant replied on the same date saying that if his claim was not processed within two weeks he would be proceeding through the courts. The Department responded on 23 November 2021 saying that a member of the team had tried to phone the claimant on 30 September 2021 but could not progress the conversation as the security questions were incorrectly answered. The letter went on to say that the Department could not pay Universal Credit until the claimant's identity was verified. The team had subsequently approved the claimant's claim made on 16 April 2021, which would be progressed. The letter apologised again. 6. On 10 January 2022, the claimant requested that the claim be backdated to 1 May 2020, by posting a CRMR1 form dated 26 December 2021. The form stated that the claim \u201cstarted from 05\/2020\u201d. On 25 January 2022 the claimant posted a journal note to the same effect. On 1 February 2022 a decision maker decided that the claim could not be backdated. Notification of this decision was put on the journal on 1 February 2022. 7. On 12 July 2022 the claimant submitted a SSCS1 appeal form. This referred to a conversation in April 2022 in which the claimant's father had asked for the claim to be backdated to May 2020. The appeal appears to have led to a mandatory reconsideration in which a decision maker reviewed but did not revise the decision under appeal. The outcome was notified to the claimant on 4 November 2022. 8. The decision notice referred to a claim made on 8 May 2020, and treated it as having been made by this claimant. It referred to unsuccessful attempts to contact him on several occasions by telephone and journal messages and said that there was no further activity on the account until the claimant called on 8 June 2021 saying that he had opened a new claim as he did not realise that the May 2020 claim was still open. The May 2020 claim was closed on 22 November 2021 and the claim was progressed with effect from 16 April 2021. 9. In December 2022 the tribunal directed the Secretary of State to file a response to the appeal. The response did not refer to a May 2020 claim, but explained why the claim made in April 2021 could not be backdated. I have referred to some of the evidence submitted by the Secretary of State in the earlier paragraphs of this decision. 10. In a notice dated 22 August 2023 the tribunal adjourned the case for a telephone hearing. It noted that the case bundle had been prepared on the premise that the appeal related to the backdating of a claim made on 16 April 2021 and referred to the evidence that an earlier claim had been made in May 2020. It said that the facts and circumstances relating to the May 2020 claim needed to be clarified before the appeal could be decided. The notice directed that a presenting officer should attend the hearing and requested that both parties provide copies of records and documentary evidence of the May 2020 claim. 11. In September 2023 the Department filed a submission and some documentary evidence. This comprises addition L to the First-tier Tribunal file. The papers indicated among other things that the May 2020 claimant had given his date of birth as 1977 and an address in a different county from the claimant. They also indicated that the May 2020 claimant did not have any illnesses or disabilities. 12. The appeal came up for hearing in January 2024 but was adjourned because the claimant did not have a full set of papers. The adjournment notice recorded that the tribunal had looked at whether the Department was correct to close the May 2020 claim in February 2021. It also noted some evidence given by the claimant's father; this was: that the claimant made a UC claim in 2020; that the family have no connection with the town in which the May 2020 claimant was stated to live; that the claimant\u2019s father was unable to explain why the claimant's date of birth was stated as 1977 in the May 2020 claim form (the claimant's date of birth was in 2001); that the sort code stated in the 2020 claim was not that of the claimant\u2019s bank; and that the claimant\u2019s father did not have a copy of a UC claim made by the claimant in 2020. 13. The notice directed that the Department should provide a copy of the fraud report mentioned in the evidence and that within 28 days the claimant should comment upon the Department's assertion that the May 2020 claim was a fraudulent claim made by a third party. If the claimant did not accept that, he should provide a written statement stating why and provide documentary evidence in support. 14. In February 2024 the Department made a brief submission which included: In response to the Adjournment Notice dated 30 January 2024, I can confirm that there has been an error in the processing of this claim. I submit that [the claimant] did not make a claim to UC on 8 May 2020. This relates to a different person and is the reason why the details stated are incorrect. I apologise for this error which led [the claimant] to think a claim had been made on 8 May 2020 and led to the backdating request of this claim dated 15 April 2021. 15. In April 2024 the tribunal directed that the case be re-listed for a face to face hearing with a presenting officer attending. 16. In May 2024 the claimant submitted some further evidence. This consisted of a copy of the claimant's father's letter of complaint to the Department, which he had passed to his Member of Parliament, and the Department response to the MP. In it the Department said that in September 2021 they had incorrectly asked the claimant about a claim made in May 2020, which he said he was unaware of. They added that, as the claimant was not the May 2020 claimant, the Department was unable to provide any information in relation to that claim because of the General Data Protection Regulation. 17. The appeal came before a tribunal for a telephone hearing on 1 July 2024. The tribunal allowed the appeal. The decision notice stated: 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The decision made by the Secretary of State on 01\/02\/2022 is set aside. 3. The award of Universal Credit to [the claimant] should have commenced 8 May 2020. A back-payment from 8 May 2020 to 16 April 2021 is now owed. 4. The Appointee has confirmed that he submitted the UC claim in May 2020. The DWP have provided various responses and evidence that contradicts each other. The DWP has said that there was no claim in May 2020, that a claim in 2019 was closed quickly then the next one as in 2021, which was awarded. 5. This is contradicted by the fact that pages L33 & L34, provided by the DWP, clearly show a claim was submitted on 8 May 2020. Furthermore, page L3, again provided by the DWP, clearly shows that the claim was referred for a fraud investigation, which would not have been the case if a claim was not being considered. 6. For these reasons, I find that the Appointee did claim for UC on behalf of his son on 8 May 2020, and that the 2021 'claim' was just him chasing the May 2020 claim because he had faced intolerable delay following the fraud referral (which he would not have been told about (page L3)). 18. The Tribunal\u2019s statement of Reasons adds that: This was a telephone hearing. The appellant attended alone. A Presenting Officer, Mr Slimming, attended on behalf of the DWP. Suitable adaptations were made to the hearing format to ensure that all parties could participate fully. Breaks were offered and it was made clear to all parties that if anything was said that was not understood, that should be raised and it would be explained more clearly. Findings of fact The Tribunal made the following findings of fact: A. The appointee made a claim for Universal Credit on 8 May 2020. This was proved by the Department for Work & Pensions\u2019s log, at pages L33 & L34 of the bundle, which showed the series of steps having been completed by the appellant. These entries included one at 4.02pm confirming that the commitments had been accepted and another at 4.02pm showing that identify confirmation had been completed. B. The appointee\u2019s claim dated 8 May 2020, although not paid by the Department for Work & Pensions, was not closed. This was proved by the Department for Work & Pensions entries at page L3 of the bundle, showing a fraud investigation being opened. This page was put to the Presenting Officer at the hearing, who confirmed that the May 2020 claim was never closed. C. The 2021 'claim' was just the appointee chasing the May 2020 claim because he had faced intolerable delay following the fraud referral. It was not a new claim. D. The claim date, and therefore the date that the claim should be paid from, was 8 May 2020. 19. The issue for me is whether the tribunal has explained to the Secretary of State why it rejected the submission that the May 2020 claimant was not the present claimant. I cannot see that the tribunal has explained this. The reasoning that I have set out does deal with the issue of whether it was the present claimant who made the May 2020 claim, rather than somebody else; it concludes that the claimant was the May 2020 claimant. But it does not explain why it reached that conclusion or deal with the Department\u2019s reliance on the argument that details given in respect of that claimant are wrong in respect of the present claimant. 20. I add for completeness that in its decision refusing permission to appeal the tribunal refers to page K2 of the First-tier Tribunal papers. This is an internal Departmental document of November 2021 stating that the claimant has two claims \u2013 the May 2020 claim and the April 2021 claim. That may have reflected the Department\u2019s belief at the time but does not conclude the issue that the tribunal had to decide. 21. The question whether the present claimant made the May 2020 claim is one that is best determined at a face to face hearing, which is most appropriately conducted before a First-tier Tribunal. Nothing in my decision is intended to express a view on that question, but simply to point out some of the issues that the new tribunal must consider. The tribunal should be freshly constituted and the Department be represented by presenting officer. Nicholas Paines Judge of the Upper TribunalAuthorised for issue on 26 June 2025.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. The case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration at an oral hearing. 2. The new First-tier Tribunal should not include the tribunal judge previously involved in considering this appeal. 3. The Department of Work and Pensions should be represented at the hearing by a Presenting Officer. 4. The new First-tier Tribunal is not bound in any way…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[9033],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[8463],"kji_subject":[7712],"kji_keyword":[7705,7623,7643,11029,7636],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-574693","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-upper-tribunal-administrative-appeals-chamber","kji_year-8463","kji_subject-social","kji_keyword-appeal","kji_keyword-claim","kji_keyword-claimant","kji_keyword-department","kji_keyword-tribunal","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v JT (UC) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-v-jt-uc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v JT (UC)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1. The case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration at an oral hearing. 2. The new First-tier Tribunal should not include the tribunal judge previously involved in considering this appeal. 3. The Department of Work and Pensions should be represented at the hearing by a Presenting Officer. 4. The new First-tier Tribunal is not bound in any way...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-v-jt-uc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"11 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-v-jt-uc\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-v-jt-uc\\\/\",\"name\":\"Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v JT (UC) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-16T02:17:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-v-jt-uc\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-v-jt-uc\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-v-jt-uc\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v JT (UC)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v JT (UC) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-v-jt-uc\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v JT (UC)","og_description":"1. The case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration at an oral hearing. 2. The new First-tier Tribunal should not include the tribunal judge previously involved in considering this appeal. 3. The Department of Work and Pensions should be represented at the hearing by a Presenting Officer. 4. The new First-tier Tribunal is not bound in any way...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-v-jt-uc\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"11 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-v-jt-uc\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-v-jt-uc\/","name":"Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v JT (UC) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-16T02:17:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-v-jt-uc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-v-jt-uc\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-v-jt-uc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v JT (UC)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/574693","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=574693"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=574693"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=574693"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=574693"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=574693"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=574693"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=574693"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=574693"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}