Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1995] NISSCSC C18/95(IS) (2 August 1996)

 


Decision No: C18/95(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 Appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from the decision of the Lurgan Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 27 July 1995 DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an appeal by the Adjudication Officer brought by leave of the Chairman against the decision of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal which held that claimant was entitled to income support from 21 February 1995. The question at issue was whether or not she was a student within the meaning of the regulations.
2. The Tribunal against which the Adjudication Officer appealed made the following findings of fact:-

"Claimant commenced a full time course at Armagh College of

Further Education in September 1994.

This course entailed periods of tuition in her subjects and

additional periods of supervised study which are compulsory.

She was required to attend each day from 9am to 2.50pm. She

reached her 19th Birthday on 11.2.95.

Child benefit terminated on 13.2.95.

On attaining 19 she was permitted by the College to abandon

her full time course in order to pursue a part-time course.

This part-time course entailed tuition in the same subjects

but no supervised study.

She was no longer required to attend from 9am to 2.50pm. She

claimed Income Support on 21.2.95."

and gave reasons for its decision as follows:-

"Regulation 6(2) General Regulations.

Claimant is not a student within meaning of these regulations.

Letters of 26.2.95 and 27.6.95 from Armagh College confirms

different status of course as part-time course.

Although the course subjects have not changed the nature of

the course itself has. Claimant is no longer on a full-time

course, and is available for employment.

Decision RS 1/98(IS) distinguished as in the case under

appeal here the Claimant has abandoned her full time course."

3. The grounds of appeal were set out as follows:-

"Miss H... commenced what is described as a 'One Year

(Intensive) A Level Course' in September 1994 when she

was 18 years of age. When she reached the age of 19

she is said to have changed to a part-time course. The

Tribunal have accepted that the course is part-time.

The GB Commissioner, in R(SB) 41/83, said that whether or

not the course is a full-time course is a question of fact

for determination by the SSAT having regard to the

circumstances in each particular case. He also said that

the SSAT should take into account the description of the

course given by the college. Although such evidence is

not conclusive any other evidence adduced in rebuttal

should be weighty in content.

In R(SB) 40/83 another GB Commissioner also said that

evidence from the educational establishment concerned is

not necessarily conclusive although, unless on its face

inconclusive, ought to be accepted as conclusive unless

it is challenged by relevant evidence which at least raises

the possibility that it should be rejected. The NI Chief

Commissioner in R3/94(IS) also held that although both those

decisions were concerned with third level education, the

comments made on the weight which should be attached to the

description of the course given by the relevant educational

establishment applies equally to cases involving second level

education.

I submit that the evidence in this case is contradictory. The

course is described as a one year intensive A level course but

attendance is full-time if under 19 or either full or part-time

if over 19. The evidence indicates that everyone attends the

same course irrespective of the hours of attendance. It is

difficult to see how the same course can be described as full-time

for some and part-time for others. The timetable states that

C... H... is a part-time student and she is following a

part-time course. The letter of 27 June 1995 from the college

is headed PART-TIME V FULL-TIME STUDENT STATUS. It appears

that the only difference between full and part-time courses is

the number of hours of attendance and those over 19 are not

required to attend outside of class contact time.

The question to be considered is whether the course is

full-time and I would suggest that the college, by referring

to "part-time students" and hours of attendance, are addressing

their minds to the wrong question (R(SB) 40/83). As the

Commissioner says the expression "part-time student" is not

used in the regulations and the words "full-time" relate to

the course and not the student. The Commissioner in

R(SB) 41/83 also says that all educational authorities

prescribe the period within which a course of education is

to be completed and their assessment is based upon the amount

of time required to achieve the standard demanded. Therefore

the normal period prescribed for completion of the course is

a clear indication as to whether or not the student is attending

a full-time course. In this case the course is a one year

intensive course and, I would submit, a full-time course.

The Tribunal found as a fact that the claimant commenced a

full-time course in September 1994 but abandoned this course

in order to pursue a part-time course. I submit that all the

evidence indicates that the claimant is still following the same

course but attending less hours. This does not change the

nature of the course.

I finally submit that the decision reached by the tribunal,

that the claimant is not a student, is one that no person

properly instructed as to the law could have made."

4. I arranged an oral hearing at which claimant did not appear nor was she represented but the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mrs McRory. Mrs McRory reiterated the grounds of appeal and her argument was that there was a conflict of evidence that the fact that the claimant became 19 did not change the nature of the course and the only difference was the hours she had to attend and that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that claimant was not a student.
5. I have considered all the documents in this case and I have considered the findings of the Tribunal. The Tribunal referred to two letters from the Armagh College, the first which is referred to as the letter of 26.2.95 and that would appear to refer to a letter of 21.2.95 in which the Armagh College of Further Education set out the fact that claimant was a part-time student following a part-time course and that was signed by the part-time tutor and set the number of hours which was wrongly added up as 15 which should in fact amount to 14 hours attendance. The second letter, the more important letter, and it is of 27.6.95 signed by the Principal seems to be the letter which influenced the Tribunal and I think it is helpful to set that letter out in full:-

"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

RE: PART-TIME v FULL-TIME STUDENT STATUS

The College course profile consists of a range of full-time and

part-time courses.

A full-time course at this College is one on which there are

minimum class contact hours (taught hours by a member of

Academic Staff) of 21 per week. Such courses are timetabled

into a 30 hour framework over a five-day week, beginning at

9.00 am and ending at 3.50 pm. All full-time students must

attend at 9.00 am each day, and may not leave prior to

2.50 pm on any day, except Friday, when leaving at 1.10 pm,

in certain circumstances, is permissible.

Full-time students following full-time courses must, therefore,

attend a minimum of 24 and a maximum of 30 hours on each week.

Full-time students, other than those aged over 19 years at

1 September 1995, will generally be eligible for free tuition,

free exam fees, free textbooks and stationery and, in certain

circumstances, free travel.

In the case of part-time students and part-time courses, the

element of compulsion on students to attend the College for

a period above the course taught hours does not exist.

Part-time students are responsible for payment of tuition

fees, textbook fees, stationery fees, and examination fees

and receive no assistance with travel costs.

Whilst the College takes responsibility for ensuring that

full-time students meet deadlines for submission of

examination entries and applications for such as Higher

Education entry and Awards, the College does not take this

responsibility in the case of part-time students.

By its requirement that part-time students are aged over 19

years, the College considers that at that age a student is

sufficiently mature to manage his/her affairs without the

compulsion to comply with regulations which are designed

for a less mature student (full-time) group."

If one considers that letter then the Adjudication Officer's appeal seems to confuse certain terms. In the Adjudication Officer's submission it said "the evidence indicates that everyone attends the same course irrespective of the hours of attendance", and also says "it appears that the only difference between full-time and part-time courses is the number of hours of attendance and those over 19 are not required to attend outside of class contact time". If one reads the letter it is quite clear that minimum class contact time is 21 hours per week, so the Adjudication Officer is completely wrong when she says that the only difference between full-time and part-time is the number of hours of attendance and those over 19 are not required to attend outside of class contact hours. What part-time students are required to do is to attend the course taught hours and there is clearly a difference between the course taught hours and the minimum class contact hours. So the minimum class contact hours is not relevant to a part-time student who is only required to attend 14 course taught hours per week. One must also take cognisance and give proper weight to the College's designation of the course and it is clear that the course which this claimant is attending is designated by the College as a part-time course.

6. The Tribunal was clearly influenced by the letters from the College. It found as a fact that there was no supervised study and was therefore entitled, on the evidence before it, to come to the decision which it did, namely that claimant was not a student within the meaning of the regulations and was therefore entitled to income support from 21.2.1995. I am satisfied the Tribunal did not err in law and the appeal is dismissed.

(Signed): C C G McNally

COMMISSIONER

2 August 1996