Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1993] NISSCSC A14/93(IS) (11 June 1993)

 


A14/93(IS)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 INCOME SUPPORT
Application by the above-named claimant for leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from the decision of Coleraine Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 11 June 1993
DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. In this case the claimant seeks leave to appeal against the decision of Coleraine Social Security Appeal Tribunal, whereby it was held that there had been an overpayment of income support amounting to £499.95 which was recoverable by the Department.
2. The claimant is a single parent with a dependant son who was born on 25 October 1991. She is a student at Coleraine University and received a student grant payable from 28 September 1992 in respect of the academic year 1992/93. She had, however, taken the previous year (1991/92) out in order to have her child and had been in receipt of income support while living in the Lisburn area. In September 1992 she and her son moved to Coleraine and on 29 September she completed a claim form in respect of income support thereafter to be payable at her new address. In the claim form she gave details of the income support which she was currently receiving and stated that she was merely notifying the authorities of her change of address. There was no indication on the form that she was a student and income support was accordingly awarded from and including 23 September 1992. It was not until some time later that the Adjudication Officer learned that the claimant was a student and that she had been awarded a student grant payable from 28 September 1992. The award had not been made until a date in October 1992 and the claimant did not receive payment until the 23rd of that month. In the light of this information the Adjudication Officer reviewed the decision to award income support from and including 23 September 1992, on the grounds that there had been a relevant change of circumstances. The revised decision was that the claimant was not entitled to income support, and the Adjudication Officer further decided that income support amounting to £499.95, which had been paid to the claimant for the period from 23 September 1992 to 24 November 1992, was recoverable by the Department. Of this sum, it was said that £222.20 paid for the period 23/9/92 to 20/10/92 was recoverable because it would not have been paid if the claimant's student grant had been paid at the correct time, (section 72(1) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992), and that £277.75 for the period from 21/10/92 to 24/11/92 was recoverable because the claimant had failed to disclose the material fact that she was in receipt of a grant, (section 69(1) of the 1992 Act). As explained in paragraph 1 above, the Appeal Tribunal confirmed the Adjudication Officer's decision.
3. In the claimant's application for leave to appeal to the Commissioner it is alleged that the Appeal Tribunal breached the rules of natural justice in a number of respects. It is, however, clear that the substance of the claimant's case is that in her submission it is unfair in the circumstances that she should be required to repay the income support which was paid to her in error. She maintains that she acted reasonably throughout and she states that she could not possibly afford to pay back the amount due. Unfortunately, none of these arguments is relevant to an alleged breach of the rules of natural justice. It is a common misconception that there is an overriding law of natural justice which takes precedence over the law of the land and upon which the individual citizen may rely when it is considered that a particular provision of a statute or regulation has operated unfairly. There is, however, no such overriding law. The rules of natural justice are concerned with procedure and are designed to ensure that a claimant is accorded a fair hearing and given a reasonable opportunity to present his case. If the law as it stands is thought to operate unfairly, it is for the legislature to make the necessary amendment; but the adjudicating authorities have no power to disregard or override an existing statutory provision. In this instance the relevant provisions are those of sections 69(1) and 72(1) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 which are as follows:-

"69(1) Where it is determined that, whether fraudulently or

otherwise, any person has misrepresented, or failed

to disclose, any material fact and in consequence of

the misrepresentation or failure -

(a) a payment has been made in respect of a benefit

to which this section applies; or

(b) any sum recoverable by or on behalf of the

Department in connection with any such payment

has not been recovered,

the Department shall be entitled to recover the amount

of any payment which the Department would not have made

or any sum which the Department would have received but

for the misrepresentation or failure to disclose."

Section 72(1) Where -

(a) a payment by way of prescribed income is made

after the date which is the prescribed date in

relation to the payment; and

(b) it is determined that an amount which has been

paid by way of income support would not have been

paid if the payment had been made on the prescribed

date,

the Department shall be entitled to recover that amount

from the person to whom it was paid."

In my view there is nothing whatever to suggest that these provisions were incorrectly applied in the present case.

4. I accept that it was an unfortunate combination of circumstances which led to the overpayment of income support to the claimant. There was not, however, in my opinion any question of a breach of the rules of natural justice, and I have reached the conclusion that the grounds relied upon by the claimant in support of her application for leave to appeal to the Commissioner are without foundation. I have also considered whether there is any other ground for holding that the decision of the Appeal Tribunal is or may be erroneous in point of law and have reached the conclusion that there is not. Leave to appeal will accordingly be refused.
5. I realise that it is not a matter for the Commissioner; but I would nevertheless

express the hope that the repayment of the amount due might be so arranged as to avoid undue hardship to the claimant.

(Signed): R. R. Chambers

CHIEF COMMISSIONER