Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1998] NISSCSC C61/98(IB) (28 October 1999)

 


Decision No:C61/98(IB)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 INCAPACITY BENEFIT Appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from the decision of Belfast Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 22 April 1998 DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an appeal by the claimant against the decision of an Appeal Tribunal whereby it was held that the claimant was capable of work from and including 26 August 1997. Leave to appeal was granted by a Chairman on 21 July 1998. The appeal was not received within time. However, the appeal was accepted by a Commissioner on 16 February 1999 for special reasons.
2. The claimant became unfit for work on 22 November 1995 and claimed and was paid Incapacity Benefit. At a later stage it was decided that the All Work Test was applicable. The claimant completed the usual questionnaire giving details of how his illness or disability affected his ability to perform various activities. He also was examined by a Medical Officer of the Department. In the circumstances an Adjudication Officer decided that the claimant had failed the All Work Test with a score of 3 points. Therefore the Adjudication Officer reviewed the decision awarding Incapacity Benefit from 25 November 1995 and gave a revised decision disallowing Incapacity Benefit from and including 26 August 1997. The claimant then appealed to a Tribunal. The appeal was out of time but a Chairman extended the time limit and admitted the appeal for hearing. This Chairman was a different person from the one who originally presided at the appeal. In the document granting leave, the Chairman stated that leave was given in relation to the "adequacy of findings and reasons". While reasons for granting leave are not required by statute, I commend the Chairman's approach as being good practice.
3. On appeal the Tribunal made the following findings of fact material to its decision:-

"1. Mr A... was found to have significant difficulty in the following areas and scored accordingly:

2. Activity Descriptor Score

Walking 1e 3

Stairs 2e (3)

Standing 4f 3

Rising from Sitting 5c 3

___

TOTAL 9

3. Mr A... failed the All Work Test.

4. Mr A... is capable of work from and including 26 August 1997."

4. The Tribunal gave the following reasons for its decision:-

"1. As per 1-6 inclusive above.

2. Evidence in Submission Papers.

3. Evidence and Demeanour of Appellant."

5. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was in the following terms:-

"Appeal not allowed. Mr A... scored 9 points on the

All Work Test. He is capable of work from and including

26 August 1997."

6. The claimant appealed on the grounds that the Tribunal:-

(i) breached the rules of natural justice;

(ii) made its decision on insufficient evidence; and

(iii) misinterpreted evidence.

7. Having considered the circumstances of the case I am satisfied that the appeal can properly be determined without an oral hearing.
8. The claimant did not develop his grounds of appeal even though he was given an opportunity so to do.
9. Mr Toner, the Adjudication Officer now concerned with this case, by letter dated 28 February 1999 pointed out that the claimant had not been specific in giving reasons why he was submitting that the Tribunal had erred. Accordingly he did not support the claimant's appeal on any of those grounds.
10. I consider that Mr Toner is correct in his submissions in relation to ground (ii) and (iii).
11. However, Mr Toner submitted that the reasons recorded for the Tribunal's decision do not meet the requirements of regulation 23(3A) of the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 in that the reasons do not explain why the claimant's appeal failed or why the Tribunal scored as it did on the All Work Test. Accordingly he supported the claimant's appeal.
12. There is substance in the view that the reasoning of the Tribunal breached the rules of natural justice which was ground (i) of the claimant's appeal.
13. It is noteworthy that in paragraph 1 of the reasons for decision there is a reference to "1-6". At first reading this would appear to refer to paragraphs 1 to 6 of the findings of fact material to the decision. However, on examination of the findings of fact it is clear that there were only 4 paragraphs. Therefore the reference to "1-6" is inexplicable unless it is an inaccurate reference to "1-4".
14. The findings of fact of the Tribunal in this case are terse. The reasons for its decision are even more terse. In certain circumstances the scoring on each activity by allocating a particular descriptor can be sufficient in circumstances where, as in this case, there is a careful presentation of the issues in the record of proceedings. However, as Mr Toner reminded me, Chief Commissioner Temple in Great Britain decision R(U)3/80, when dealing with a case concerning the Great Britain Social Security (Determination of Claims and Questions) Regulations 1975 (and commenting on a regulation requiring a Tribunal to include in its record a statement of the grounds of such decision and of its findings of questions of fact material thereto) stated at paragraph 3:-

"3. The regulation does no more than reproduce similar

provisions made by its predecessors, on which the

Commissioners for years have spelled out, in simple terms

and unambiguous language, the obligation of local tribunals

to comply with this duty. They have emphasised at length in

reported decisions the reasons why the obligation is imposed,

pointing to such elementary considerations as that a claimant

ought to be able to see why he has failed, and that those

concerned in the event of an appeal to the Commissioner should

not be left to guess - as I am now - about the facts found to

be material to the decision."

In my view this statement is consistent with my decision in C46/97(IB).

15. In my view there is no doubt that in the present case there is no explanation in the reasons for the Tribunal's decision to enable the claimant to know why the contentions put forward on his behalf were rejected. Mr Toner submits that this is an error in point of law. I agree with him.
16. Therefore I conclude that the Tribunal did fail in this case to give an adequate statement of the reasons for its decision and that its decision does not meet the requirements of regulation 23(3A) of the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 as to relevant reasons. Therefore the decision is erroneous on point of law. I therefore set the Tribunal's decision aside and remit the case for rehearing and redetermination to an entirely differently constituted Tribunal.

(Signed): J A H Martin

CHIEF COMMISSIONER

28 October 1999