NJW/SH/ZA/1

Commissioner's File:	CIS/514/1997
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ACT 1992
SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS ACT 1992
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL TRIBUNAL ON A QUESTION OF LAW
DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
Name:
Social Security Appeal Tribunal:

Case No:
1.	This appeal fails. My decision is that the decision of the Middlesbrough SSAT dated 29 August 1996 is not erroneous in law.
2. There is no dispute about the facts of this case. In 1991 the appellant's central heating system was condemned by the Gas Board. He had a complete new central heating system installed at a cost of £5,200. He borrowed the money he needed from a bank.
3.	In November 1995 the appellant became unemployed and claimed income support. He asked for help with the home improvement loan which he had taken out from the bank in order to pay for his central heating system. The adjudication officer and, on appeal, the tribunal, refused him any help with the loan because of a change in the law governing such payments.
4.	That law is now to be found at paragraph 16, Schedule 3, Income Support (General) Regulations 1997. A loan taken out for the purpose of carrying out repairs and improvements to the home can qualify for help but only if the work falls within a list set out in paragraph 16(2).The tribunal decided that the work carried out in 1991 did not fall within that list.
5. For the appellant, it is argued that the work falls within the category of "repairs to existing heating systems" in paragraph 16 (2) (b). It is argued by his representative that "repair" means to "restore to good condition after damage or wear" and that "restore" means "bring back to former place or condition of use". It is suggested that what happened in 1991 was that the appellant was merely restoring the heating system in his home to its former use.
CIS/514/1997

6. I do not accept that submission. In my judgment the words "repairs to existing heating systems" exclude the replacement of an old unsafe system with a complete new central heating system. The tribunal was correct in law in reaching its conclusion.
7. The appellant had received help with the loan on a previous claim for income support. This was because before the amendment, the law referred to "provision of heating, including central heating". The adjudication officer now concerned with this case, while supporting the tribunal in its conclusion, speculates whether the tribunal might have erred in law by not considering whether the appellant was entitled to help under the Transitional Protection Regulations. On the facts before the tribunal, however these did not apply for the reasons given in paragraph 6.6 of the adjudication officer's submission to the tribunal. The appellant was represented at the tribunal and did not contest this issue. In my judgment, the tribunal did not err in law in not referring specifically to the question of transitional protection.
(Signed) N J Warren Commissioner
(Date)	14 April 1998
CIS/514/1997
2