CIS_303_1992
[1992] UKSSCSC CIS_303_1992 (10 December 1992)
R(IS) 15/93
Mr. J. J. Skinner CIS/303/1992
10.12.92
Housing costs - restriction of housing costs - whether restriction may be reviewed when interest rates decrease
The claimant, who had been receiving supplementary benefit followed by income support since 1986, bought a house for £70,000 in 1989. On 29 August 1990, a tribunal (the first tribunal) decided that the amount allowed in the claimant's income support for housing costs should be restricted to the amount she would have had to borrow if she had bought a property for £55,000. Her housing costs were assessed at £126 per week.
On 14 November 1990, an adjudication officer reviewed the tribunal's decision on a relevant change of circumstances, that is, the reduction in interest rates. The revised decision allowed housing costs at £119.73 per week. The claimant appealed against this decision to a second tribunal. The claimant's representative argued that this tribunal should review the decision of the first tribunal on the ground that it was no longer reasonable to expect the claimant to seek cheaper alternative accommodation. The second tribunal decided that the change in the interest rate was a relevant change of circumstances entitling the adjudication officer to review the decision of the first tribunal. But they refused to revise the decision of that tribunal relating to allowable housing costs. The claimant appealed to the Commissioner.
Held that:
- the reduction in the mortgage interest rate is a relevant change of circumstances giving grounds for review under section 25(l)(b) of the Social Security Administration Act. Neither the provisions in paragraph 7(8) of Schedule 3 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 nor regulation 69(2) of the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations 1986 applied in this case (para. 6);
- if a claimant can establish grounds for review of a decision relating to the restriction of housing costs for the first time at the tribunal hearing, it is open to the tribunal to deal with the matter as a question first arising under section 36 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The duty of a tribunal is to consider whether they should exercise their discretion under this section. In the present case, the tribunal erred in law in not considering whether or not to use their discretion to deal with the wider change of circumstances that was before them. But this does not mean that when there are grounds for review the whole determination is thrown open for consideration (paras. 7 and 8).
The appeal was allowed. The Commissioner remitted the case to another tribunal for rehearing.
DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
Date: 10 December 1992 (signed) Mr. J. J. Skinner
Commissioner