Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1994] NISSCSC A6/94(SUPP BEN) (28 April 1994)

 


A6/94(SUPP BEN)

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1977 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT Application by the above-named claimant for leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from the decision of Dungannon Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 28 April 1994 DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of Dungannon Social Security Appeal Tribunal, upholding the Adjudication Officer's decision that there were no grounds to review the amount of supplementary benefit paid to the claimant prior to 11 April 1988.
2. Briefly, the facts are that on 5 September 1991 the claimant requested a review of his entitlement to heating and diet additions, as elements of his supplementary benefit. In view of the lapse of time since the ending of supplementary benefit, information concerning the claim was somewhat sketchy, and having investigated the matter the Adjudication Officer decided that there were no grounds to review. The claimant appealed
3. In his submission to the Appeal Tribunal the Adjudication Officer referred to the fact that the onus was on the claimant to establish that there were grounds to review. It was said that in this instance no such grounds had been proved, but it was further pointed out that, even if the claimant did succeed in establishing grounds to review, he would nevertheless be caught by the provisions of regulation 69(1) of the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987, (the Adjudication Regulations), which precluded the revision on review of an award so as to make supplementary benefit payable for any period more than 12 months before the date of the request for review.
4. The claimant did not attend the Appeal Tribunal hearing, but his representative made a number of submissions in support of his contention that in 1987 he had satisfied the conditions for payment of heating and diet additions. New medical evidence was produced; but there was no further evidence to suggest that there had been non-payment of any of the additions to which he was then entitled. The Tribunal disallowed the appeal, holding that the claimant had "not established any grounds for review or so as to enable awards to be revised."
5. In the application for leave to appeal which was submitted on the claimant's behalf it was acknowledged that the onus was on him to establish grounds to review. It was said that, if there was a shortage of evidence, this was due to the DHSS "weeding" of documents and that the Tribunal had failed to weigh all the facts. No reference was made to the possible effect of the provisions of regulation 69(1) of the Adjudication Regulations.
6. I held an oral hearing at which the claimant, who was present, was represented by Mr H W?, of Counsel, instructed by Mr Q?, Solicitor, of ?. The Adjudication Officer was represented by Mrs McRory.

Mr W? submitted that the Appeal Tribunal had failed to record the reasons for their decision in sufficient detail and had not given full weight to the facts. He acknowledged, however, that the claimant had not provided the Tribunal with any evidence to support his contention that he had not received all the supplementary benefit to which he was entitled. He further accepted that, by reason of the restrictions imposed by regulation 69(1) of the Adjudication Regulations, the claimant would not, in any event, have been able to secure payment of supplementary benefit due in respect of any period prior to 11 April 1988.

Mrs McRory submitted that the decision of the Appeal Tribunal was not erroneous in law.

7. As I indicated at the conclusion of the oral hearing, this is in my view a case in which the claimant would be no better off, even if I were to hold that the Appeal Tribunal had erred in law. He would still be unable to obtain payment of arrears of supplementary benefit because of the provisions of regulation 69 of the Adjudication Regulations.

I have, however, reached the firm conclusion that the Appeal Tribunal were fully justified in deciding that there were no grounds to review the claimant's entitlement to supplementary benefit and that their decision was not erroneous in point of law. I accordingly refuse leave to appeal.

(Signed): R R Chambers

CHIEF COMMISSIONER