Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1994] NISSCSC C4/94 (SUPP BEN) (16 August 1994)

 


Decision No. C4/94 (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

and appeal to the Social Security Commissioner

on a question of law from the decision of

Magherafelt Social Security Appeal Tribunal

dated 29 March 1994

DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. In this case the claimant seeks leave to appeal against the decision of Magherafelt Social Security Appeal Tribunal, whereby it was held that there were no grounds to review any decisions relating to the amount of Supplementary Benefit paid to him prior to 11 April 1988. I grant leave to appeal and, with the consent of the parties, treat the application as an appeal.
2. The case is similar to one which I dealt with recently in Decision No. C3/94(SUPP BEN). The claimant had requested a review of Supplementary Benefit paid to him prior to 11 April 1988 and had appealed against the Adjudication Officer's decision that there were no grounds to review. The Tribunal upheld that decision, and let me say at once that having regard to the attitude adopted by the claimant's representative they may well have been perfectly justified in doing so. However, as in C3/94(SUPP BEN), the Tribunal found as a fact that there were no reviewable decisions relating to the claimant's Supplementary Benefit and repeated in their reasons for decision that they were unable to identify any reviewable decision.
3. For the reasons explained in C3/94(SUPP BEN) the Tribunal erred in law in finding that there were "no reviewable decisions". The Adjudication Officer had acknowledged that there were a number of recorded decisions going back as far as 1975, all of which were capable of being reviewed if proper grounds were established. To that extent they were reviewable decisions, although that of course did not, in itself, mean that there was any real likelihood that they would be revised. Quite apart from the establishment of grounds for review, there were also the restrictions imposed by Regulation 69 of the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987, (The Adjudication Regulations), to be considered.
4. Although the Tribunal's error in point of law may have been somewhat technical, I take the view that it was sufficiently fundamental to require me to allow this appeal.
5. So far as the claimant's other grounds of appeal are concerned, I am of the opinion that they are without substance. There was no dispute on the facts, and there was therefore no reason why the Tribunal should not have recorded their findings of fact by incorporating part of the Adjudication Officer's written submission. I also take the view that this was not a case in which the Tribunal wrongly accepted a concession. I do not know the precise form of words used by the claimant's representative in informing the Tribunal that he was unable to identify any reviewable decision; but the claimant was not present at the hearing and the onus was on him to establish grounds for review. In those circumstances his failure to do so was not a "concession" in the ordinary sense of that word. In any event the so called "concession" related to "reviewable" decisions, and I have already held that the Tribunal erred in law in finding as a fact that there were none.
6. I have also considered the further question raised on the claimant's behalf in relation to the correction of the error in the record of the Tribunal's decision. I agree that the correction was much more extensive than is normally encountered in these cases and I have therefore had enquiries made. I understand that the error arose through the mistaken attachment of the entire page 4 from another appeal. I am satisfied that this was a genuine accidental error, which was capable of correction under the provisions of Regulation 10 of the Adjudication Regulations. For the reasons given in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, I allow this appeal, set aside the decision of the Appeal Tribunal and refer the case for determination by another Tribunal, with the direction that they have regard to the views expressed in this decision. In C3/94(SUPP BEN) I included a warning to the claimant that the success of his appeal should not be regarded as any indication that he would succeed in establishing entitlement to any additional benefit. I repeat that warning with greater emphasis in this instance. The grounds upon which this appeal is being allowed are largely technical and as matters stand there is little to suggest that there are proper grounds for the review of any of the previous decisions on Supplementary Benefit. Finally, if such grounds are established, there is still the hurdle of Regulation 69 of the Adjudication Regulations to be overcome.

(Signed): R. R. Chambers

CHIEF COMMISSIONER

16 August 1994