UK Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1998] UKSSCSC CDLA_4110_1997 (06 April 1998)


 


MH/SH/AH/3

Commissioner's File: CDLA/4110/1997

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS ACT 1992

APPEAL FROM DECISION OF A DISABILITY APPEAL TRIBUNAL ON A QUESTION OF LAW

DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. My decision is that this appeal must be allowed. The case must be remitted for rehearing to a wholly different disability appeal tribunal.
2. On 10 July 1996, the Birkenhead Disability Appeal Tribunal dismissed an appeal by the claimant for disability benefit in respect of both mobility and care components.
3. On 20 August 1996, the representative of the claimant (who is aged 7) wrote that he wished to appeal and asked to be sent a copy of the chairman's notes of the hearing. On 16 September 1996 he wrote saying that the Photostats of the manuscript notes he had been sent were not legible, and asking for a typed copy.
4. In a letter apparently dated 22 October 1996, the Clerk to the Tribunal wrote:-

"The current Regulations require me to make accessible to you a copy of the records of proceedings made by the tribunal chairman. I have complied with these Regulations and regret that it is neither possible nor proper for me to seek to interpret, clarify, or otherwise to comment on that records. (sic)"

There is no indication in the papers upon what authority these statements were made, nor whether the chairman had ever been informed of the requests made for a legible version of the records.

5. On 15 October 1997, I gave leave to appeal to the Commissioner and, in the order, made a direction that "the chairman's "record of proceedings" should be typed, verified by the chairman, and added to the papers".

There has been no response at all to this direction or to two reminders asking for a reply.

6. A submission by the adjudication officer dated 5 December 1997 supported the appeal, paragraph 9 of which referred to a ground of appeal put forward on the ground that the notes of evidence were illegible, and contains

"When providing a record of the tribunal's proceedings and the decision thereof it is sensible to suppose that this will be legible in whatever medium the tribunal chairman has determined. In this instance this is not the case and I submit that the tribunal have erred in law in this case." (Emphasis added.)

7. It thus can be seen that both parties agree in concluding that the "record" provided to them was not legible and, since any other had been refused, there had been an error of law. I am satisfied, having seen copies of the relevant documents, which are on the file, that such a conclusion is fully justified. It seems to me unarguable to assert that a chairman can put forward an illegible document as a "record" and claim that he has complied with the current Regulations. The short answer is that he has not. A record must mean a written, or typed, document, produced for the purpose of enabling other people, whether on appeal or otherwise, to understand what happened on the hearing of the appeal. To suggest that to produce a document in illegible manuscript            complies with the obligations laid down in the Regulations shows,. I regret to state, a serious lack of judicial understanding, and even of common good sense.
8. In the circumstances I do not find it necessary to deal with the other grounds of appeal raised by both parties.

The decision of the disability appeal tribunal of 10 July 1996 is accordingly set aside. The case is remitted for re-hearing

to a differently constituted disability appeal tribunal, which should have before it and consider the submission of the adjudication officer dated 5 December 1997 and any other matters raised by or on behalf of the parties before them.

(Signed) M Heald

Commissioner

(Date) 6 April 1998