UK Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1995] UKSSCSC CU_96_1994 (17 May 1995)


 


Commissioner's File: CU/096/1994

SOCIAL SECURITY ACTS 1975 TO 1990

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ACT 1992 CLAIM FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

Appeal Tribunal: Ashington

1. My decision is that the decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal is erroneous in point of law and accordingly I set it aside. I remit the case for determination to a differently constituted social security appeal tribunal who should have regard to what I have said in the course of this decision.

2. This is a claimant's appeal against the decision of the Ashington Social Security Appeal Tribunal given on 23 May 1994 which decided that he was not entitled to unemployment benefit for the period 17 July 1993 to 16 November 1993 (both dates included).

3. I have before me grounds of appeal prepared on behalf of the claimant by Messrs. Long and Purves, Solicitors, of North Shields, and the submission of the adjudication officer now concerned who supports the appeal.

4. The claimant became unemployed on 24 December 1992. He claimed unemployment benefit. He attended an interview with an officer of the Department of Employment on 27 July 1993 and he completed an employment interview form in which he stated that he would need one day's notice in order to start work. He explained to the officer that he required 24 hours' notice in order to start work as he had to make arrangements for his family, including his wife, to make their way to school and college. He made the case that he was prepared to take night work immediately, but that he had to have notice of day work because he would have to make arrangements to collect his children and his wife. The adjudication officer, by a decision dated 15 September 1993, decided that he was not entitled to unemployment benefit for 27 July 1993 because he was not available and could not be deemed to be available to be employed on that day. The adjudication officer further ordered that if a claim was made for a day following in the period from 28 July 1993 to 14 December 1993 and on that day the grounds of his decision had not ceased to exist then such decision was to be treated as a disallowance of that claim. The claimant appealed to the tribunal. In evidence he said that his sons were 14 and 16 years of age at the time of the claim. He explained that his wife was attending a Return to Nursing Course at Newcastle College. He took his younger son to school and his elder son to a YTS and his wife to college. He collected them at night. If he had to take a job immediately they would not be able to get back home. He explained that he would be available for a night shift job immediately. He thought that 24 hours was an undue restriction. The findings of the tribunal on questions of fact material to their decision, as set out in box 2 of the AT3, were limited to saying that the facts set out in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the submission to them were all relevant to their decision. They decided that the claimant was not entitled to unemployment benefit and in the reasons for their decision they said that this was because he was not available, and cannot be deemed to be available, to be employed on the relevant dates. They noted that he had completed the interview form and had stated that he would need one day's notice of starting work and that he had said at the interview that this was because he was transporting the other members of his family to school and work and that he would need 24 hours to make alternative arrangements. They then went on to say as follows

"Unfortunately [the claimant] receives no help from Regulation 12 of the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Regulations 1983, his is not a service within the regulation. He has not shown that he was available for work as required by Section 57(1)(a) of the Social Security (Contributions and Benefits) Act 1992 in the period 27.7.93 to 16.9.93 (both dates included) and he does not satisfy the condition of entitlement to Unemployment Benefit under that section. The condition for entitlement is satisfied from 17.9.93 when he removed the 24 hour restriction and made himself available to commence work immediately. We add that to say that he was available for night shift work only would still be restrictive and put        outside Section 57(1)(a)(1)."

On 18 October 1994 a Commissioner gave the claimant leave to appeal against the decision.

5. As the appeal before me turns on regulation 12 of the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness Invalidity Benefit) Regulations I must set out the material parts of paragraph 1 of that regulation

"12.-(1) Subject to paragraph (1A), where on any day a person is engaged, whether by contract or otherwise, in providing a service with or without remuneration and the circumstances are such that it would not be reasonable to require him, as a condition of qualifying for unemployment benefit, to make himself available at less than 24 hours' notice-

(a) for employment in employed earner's employment;

(b) ……………………… ;

(c) ……………………… ;

he shall be deemed on that day to be available for employment in employed earner's employment if ready on being given not less than 24 hours' notice to undertake employment or attend for interview, as the case may require."

The phrase "providing a service with or without remuneration" is a wide one. The service provided does not have to be for the public, it does not have to arise under a contract of employment. Clearly, it can be provided for a member of the claimant's family; unlike the alternative derogation from the general rule provided for by regulation 12(1A) which relates to a person engaged in providing a service as a "volunteer" ."Volunteer" is defined in regulation 1 of the Regulations as "means a person who is engaged in voluntary work with a charity or voluntary body, or who is engaged in voluntary work otherwise than for a member of his family, …". The contrast between the wording of paragraph (1) and (1A) reinforces my view that a service provided for a member of a claimant's own family can fall within regulation 12(1 ). I have had regard to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary under "service". The meaning given to the word in (iv) thereof is relevant; the meaning so given is: "the action of serving, helping or benefiting: conduct tending to the welfare or advantage of another" and again "an act of helping or benefiting". It seems to me the word is used in that sense in regulation 12(1). So consequently if the claimant does an act which helps or benefits a member of his family or does something which tends to their welfare or advantage, he can be said to be rendering a service. However it must be necessary service not some fanciful help. No doubt many unemployed people may be able to satisfy that criteria and the real restriction on the operation of the paragraph is that the circumstances are such that it would not be reasonable to expect the claimant to be ready for suitable employment in less than 24 hours' notice. The tribunal in the case before me stated in the reasons for their decision:

"Unfortunately, [the claimant] receives no help from regulation 12 of the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Regulations 1983. His is not a service within the regulation."

It appears that they construed the regulation, as a matter of law, to mean that a "service" does not include necessary help given to the members of a claimant's own family. It is possible that they may have considered that such help was unnecessary and that the activity was not worthwhile, but if that was so they should have said so, either in their findings of fact or in the reasons for the decision.

6. However it does not seem to me that taking one's children to school can be a "service" as envisaged by the regulation because the-claimant does no more than exercise his parental responsibility; he is not providing a service to the children, he is simply doing what he is in duty bound to do, namely ensuring that the children go to school. Clearly the service envisaged by the regulation cannot relate to activities that a person is under a duty to perform anyway. The regulation relates to activities for the benefit of another, not those which are done for the claimant's own benefit. In my judgment the claimant's activities relating to the children do not fall within regulation 12(1 ).

7. I have now to consider whether the fact that the claimant transported his wife to and from the nursing course could in law be such an activity as to constitute a service under the regulation. It was something done for the wife's benefit and it does not seem that the claimant had any duty or responsibility so to transport her. No doubt it was a worthwhile and kindly thing to do, but he did not have to do it, and I accept that he could in law provide a service. However the question then arises whether the circumstances are such that it would not be reasonable to require him to make himself available for employment at less than 24 hours' notice. This raises a number of questions of fact, among them whether or not it was feasible for the wife to use the family car herself to go to the course and to return therefrom. She may or may not have a driving licence. It is also necessary to consider whether she could use public transport. These will all be questions of fact for the new tribunal. I direct them that as a matter of law the activities relied upon by the claimant in relation to his children are not a service, but that the activities relating to his wife may be. However it will be necessary for the members to consider whether the circumstances are such that it would not be reasonable to require him to make himself available at less than 24 hours' notice.

 

(Signed) J.J. Skinner

Commissioner

(Date)

17 May 1995