Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1996] NISSCSC CSC2/96 (30 January 1997)

 


Decision No: CSC2/96

THE CHILD SUPPORT (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDERS 1991 AND 1996

CHILD SUPPORT

Appeal to the Child Support Commissioner

on a question of law from the decision of

the Child Support Appeal Tribunal

dated 23 January 1996

DECISION OF THE CHILD SUPPORT COMMISSIONER

1. This is an appeal by the Child Support Officer against the decision of Child Support Appeal Tribunal sitting at Limavady, for which leave was granted by me on 19 September 1996. From the record of the proceedings it would appear that the principal, if not the only, point considered at the Tribunal hearing was whether, in the calculation of the maintenance assessment, account should have been taken of payments by the absent parent in respect of the redecoration and refurnishing of his home after the departure of the parent with care. The Tribunal's findings of fact were:-

"Facts as in submission. Ms T… is not cohabiting with any

male. Tribunal accepts that Mr C... spent £3500 on home

improvements being redecoration and replacement of household

items, contents and furniture removed from the home by Ms T..."

On the basis of these findings, the appeal was allowed and the Child Support Officer was directed as follows:-

"Mr C...'s Child Support maintenance is to be recalculated taking

into account the payment of £3500 by Mr C... in relation to

redecoration and replacement of household items, contents and

furniture for his home."

The Tribunal's reasons for decision were:-

"The Tribunal holds that the payment by Mr C... of £3500 was

a payment in respect of or in consequence of the use and

occupation of his home in accordance with the provisions of

Regulation 14 and Paragraph 1(f) of Schedule 3 of Child Support

(Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations

(Northern Ireland) 1992 and is therefore an eligible housing

cost to be taken into account when calculating the amount of

Child Support maintenance payable by Mr C…

Tribunal also strongly advises Mr C... to apply for a review

of his case due to his overtime situation and rent increase."

In response to a request from the Child Support Officer, the Tribunal on 24 May 1996 issued the following further direction:-

"As the loan agreement was effective from 15 July 1994 with the

first repayment to be made on 14 August 1994 the weekly amount

of housing costs should be calculated from the effective date

that is 2 August 1994 - the loan agreement being in place at that

date - in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 16 Child

Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations

(Northern Ireland) 1992, the monthly amount to be considered being

£103.76."

2. The grounds of the Child Support Officer's appeal against the Tribunal's decision are those set out in her letter of application for leave dated 13 June 1996. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in law in allowing as housing costs a loan of £3500 for the redecoration and refurnishing of the absent parent's home. This had been held to be a payment in respect of or in consequence of the use and occupation of his home, and therefore allowable under the provisions of paragraph 1(f) of Schedule 3 to the Child Support (Maintenance Assessment and Special Cases) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1992, (the Maintenance Assessment Regulations), it is further pointed out that the Tribunal might have considered whether part of the interest payable on the loan of £3500 would have qualified as an eligible housing cost under paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 3 - "interest payments on loans for repairs and improvements to the home ...", and attention is drawn to the definition of "repairs and improvements" in paragraph 2.
3. Before leave to appeal was granted, the absent parent and the parent with care were invited to comment on the Child Support Officer's application. There was no response from the parent with care, but by letter dated 29 August 1996 the absent parent's representatives Messrs G( S( and B(, Solicitors and Estate Agents, H…, E… L…, explained that the expenditure of £3,500 was incurred by Mr C... solely as a result of his being left by his cohabitee; who was said to have removed "the vast majority of furnishings in the property they had shared including a three-piece suite, double bed, television, microwave, fridge/freezer and various units and other furnishings." It was submitted that Mr C... had no option but to obtain replacement furnishings and that "in these special circumstances the payments that were made to purchase alternative furnishings should be taken into account in relation to an assessment of maintenance." In conclusion it was suggested that, although this was not a normal loan for improvement or redecoration, the expenditure had been specifically required to render the property habitable.
4. Following the grant of leave to appeal there were no further written observations from or on behalf of either the absent parent or the parent with care.
5. Having considered this matter I am satisfied that the Appeal Tribunal erred in law in deciding that the £3,500 spent by the absent parent on "redecoration and replacement of household items contents and furniture removed from the home by Mrs T…" was a payment in respect of or in consequence of the use and occupation of his home, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(f) of Schedule 3 to the Maintenance Assessment Regulations. As was pointed out in decision R1/94(CSC), those provisions should be given a restricted meaning. In particular, it seems to me that paragraph 1(f) should not be regarded as an alternative to, or an extension of, paragraph 1(d). It may be that some part of the loan of £3,500 could properly have been regarded as attributable to repairs and improvements to the home within the meaning of paragraph 1(d), as further defined in paragraph 2; but that is an entirely different question, which, as has been pointed out by the Child Support Officer, would necessitate further consideration of the capital and interest elements of the loan repayment.
6. The decision of the Child Support Appeal Tribunal being erroneous in point of law, I allow this appeal and set the decision aside. I refer the case for determination by another Child Support Appeal Tribunal with the direction that they consider and decide whether any part of the absent parent's loan of £3,500 falls within the provisions of paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 3 to the Maintenance Assessment Regulations, as further explained in paragraph 2 thereof. If the decision on this issue is "no", then that is an end of the matter. If on the other hand it is decided that some part of the loan was in respect of "repairs and improvements" to the home, as so defined, it will then be necessary for the Tribunal to consider how much of that amount was made up of capital, interest, and insurance, and decide which elements should be taken into account as housing costs in the calculation of the maintenance assessment. This is a complicated matter, in respect of which I would hope that the Child Support Officer's submission to the Tribunal would provide detailed guidance.

(Signed) R R Chambers

CHIEF COMMISSIONER

30 January 1997