Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1994] NISSCSC A3/94(ICA) (24 January 1994)

 


A3/94(ICA)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS)

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

INVALID CARE ALLOWANCE

Application by the above-named claimant for

leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner

on a question of law from the decision of

Ballymena Social Security Appeal Tribunal

dated 24 January 1994

DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of Ballymena Social Security Appeal Tribunal, disallowing her appeal against the Adjudication Officer's decision dated 12 November 1992 on her claim for invalid care allowance. In that decision the Adjudication Officer recorded that he had grounds for review of the claimant's award of invalid care allowance as he was satisfied that it had been made in ignorance of the material fact that she was in gainful employment. His revised decision was that the claimant was not entitled to the allowance for certain specified periods and he further decided that, as a result, there had been an overpayment amounting to £617.20, which was recoverable from the claimant because she had failed to disclose the material fact that she had commenced work on 1 December 1988.
2. In his submission to the Appeal Tribunal the Adjudication Officer stated that, for the reasons therein set out, the decision of 12 November 1992 was incorrect and should be amended so as to increase the amount of invalid care allowance alleged to have been overpaid and to be recoverable from the claimant to £1,141.20.
3. The first hearing of the appeal on 23 June 1993 was adjourned for further information, and it was not until 24 January 1994 that the case was finally disposed of. From the record of the proceedings it is apparent that a number of points were raised on the claimant's behalf. It is equally clear that the Tribunal gave full consideration to all of those points and recorded comprehensive findings of fact and reasons for their decision.
4. The claimant's first application was to have the Tribunal's decision set aside. When this was refused, her application to the Tribunal Chairman for leave to appeal to the Commissioner was similarly rejected. The grounds upon which she now relies are that the Tribunal erred in law in that they:-

"(1) Wrongly interpreted the legislation.

(2) Failed to apply the correct law.

(3) Breached the rules of natural justice."

The claimant also refers to a letter from her husband dated 17 February 1994 which formed the basis of her original application to have the Tribunal's decision set aside.

5. I have considered the grounds upon which the claimant now seeks leave to appeal to the Commissioner. In particular, I have had regard to the letter of 17 February 1994 which sets out in detail the points upon which the claimant relies. In my opinion all of those points have already been adequately dealt with by the Tribunal and there is nothing to suggest that their decision in relation to any of them is wrong in law. I have also considered whether there are any other grounds 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 are not.

Leave to appeal will accordingly be refused.

6. The claimant requested an oral hearing of her application for leave to appeal; but having considered the circumstances of the case and the reasons put forward in the request, I am satisfied that the application can properly be determined without a hearing.

(Signed): R. R. Chambers

CHIEF COMMISSIONER

(Date):