UK Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[2003] UKSSCSC CSIB_129_2003 (28 April 2003)

 


DECISION OF SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

Commissioner's File No.: CSIB 129 2003

1. My decision is that the decision of the tribunal given at Glasgow on 5 December 2002 is not upon a point of law. The appeal fails. I dismiss it.
2. The claimant has appealed to the Commissioner against the decision of the tribunal recorded at page 63 which confirmed a decision of the Secretary of State dated 23 May 2002.
3. The grounds of appeal are shortly put. They are as follows:-

"Insufficient reasoning. The tribunal were asked to confirm previous medical assessment and tribunal's decision and there's no indication with a decision that this has been done."

The claimant's appeal is not supported as can be seen from a submission by the Secretary of State at pages 85-86. The claimant was given the opportunity to respond to the Secretary of State's submission but has not done so.

4. I do not consider that there is any merit in the claimant's appeal. In the record of proceedings it is noted that the claimant's representative did indicate in the submission that there was a vast difference between the previous points awarded and those awarded now. It was said that there was no change in the claimant's condition. That was also the position adopted by the claimant in her grounds of appeal to the tribunal recorded at pages 2 and 4. However as is pointed out by the Secretary of State in his submission the basis upon which points had previously been awarded to the claimant is unknown. I refer to paragraph 6 of the Secretary of State's submission. I consider that there is substance in that. In my view what was determined previously was immaterial by virtue of the nature of the supersession of the tribunal decision which was carried out by the decision maker at page 55. The grounds for supersession were not dependent upon a change of circumstances; they were simply on the statutory grounds that the Secretary of State had received medical evidence following an examination by an approved doctor since the decision was given. As these were the grounds of supersession and the entitlement of the Secretary of State to make the supersession on these grounds was not challenged, in my view all the tribunal required to do was to determine whether the claimant satisfied any of the points scoring descriptors in issue before them and make a decision in the light of the number of points scored. The tribunal did what was required of them and found that the claimant obtained no points. They set out a factual and reasoned basis for their decision. In my view the claimant has not demonstrated that the tribunal erred in law. I accept what is said by the Secretary of State at paragraph 8 of the submission.
5. The appeal fails.

(Signed)

D J MAY QC

Commissioner

Date: 28 April 2003