[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions >> [1993] NISSCSC A7/93(SUPP BEN) (19 April 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1993/A7_93(SUPP_BEN).html Cite as: [1993] NISSCSC A7/93(SUPP BEN)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

[1993] NISSCSC A7/93(SUPP BEN) (19 April 1993)

 


Application No: A7/93(SUPP BEN)

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1977

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT

Application by the above-named claimant for

leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner

on a question of law from the decision of the

Limavady Social Security Appeal Tribunal

dated 19 April 1993

DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal that claimant was not entitled to additional requirements payments in respect of heating, laundry, baths and clothing.
2. I arranged an oral hearing at which claimant did not appear nor was represented and the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr McLaughlin.
3. Briefly the facts are that claimant has a child, C…, who was born in October 1982. This child is unfortunately very severely handicapped both physically and mentally and the Consultant Psychiatrist in the Stradreagh Hospital certifies that the claimant copes admirably with C... although his behaviour can be extremely problematic. This appeal however concerns itself with claimant's entitlement to additional requirement payments under the old supplementary benefit legislation. The Chairman of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal granted the claimant late leave to appeal against all decisions relating to the original decision in respect of her claim to supplementary benefit and all subsequent decisions which failed to award the additional requirements which she now claims, they relate to heating, laundry, baths and clothing.
4. The Social Security Appeal Tribunal which went into the matter very thoroughly made the following findings of fact:-

"Claimant married included in husband's assessment since 28 January 1989.

She was married in January 1989. Appeal in respect of additional

requirements for hearing laundry baths and clothing claimed.

No documentary evidence of claim available. Invalid Care Allowance

refused from 19 September 1985 because claimant was gainfully employed.

Sickness Benefit payable from 23 January 1987 - 3 February 1987.

Invalidity Benefit from 4 February 1987 - 4 March 1987.

Accept claimed Supplementary Benefit 26 August 1983 - 19 September

1985 prior to this maternity or sickness, returned to work September

1985 and returned to Supplementary Benefit 2.3.1987 onwards.

Child C... with downs syndrome born 27 October 1982, has

epilepsy since January 1984.

Incontinent, attends Glasvey Special School. Has behaviour problems.

Attendance Allowance for C... from 27 October 1984.

Lived in bed and breakfast until 1989 not a householder.

Second claim to Supplementary Benefit accepted 2.3.1987 - 10.4.1988."

and having dismissed the appeal recorded its reasons for same as follows:-

"The claimant's evidence to the tribunal is that throughout her periods of claim to Supplementary Benefit she was never contacted by or seen by a Visiting Officer. She told us that she knew about additional requirements for laundry and requested an additional payment but received no reply. She told us that she travelled 4 times per week from Dungiven to the Waterside 4 times per week to a launderette at a cost of £8 per time travelling expenses.

The claimant also told us that the only visits which she had were from her Social Worker in respect of her child.

The Department hold no documentary evidence in respect of this claim inspite a search in Limavady, Londonderry and it appeared that documents were destroyed after the three year period. No documents were held only the claimant's husband's papers. The Tribunal did not accept the claimant's evidence that she was never seen or contacted by a Visiting Officer throughout her period of claim especially as the claimant had a sick child and was in regular contact with Social Workers. We also found from her evidence that she knew about laundry additions and must therefore have had some knowledge of the Supplementary Benefit system yet she failed to follow up a request for an additional requirement which she says that she made in respect of laundry costs. We find it incredible that if such laundry costs existed the claimant should fail to follow it up.

We had scant evidence of a claim to Supplementary Benefit but accept that the claimant obtained details from her ex employer which would indicate dates of claim to Supplementary Benefit and we are prepared to accept that a claim was made.

However the tribunal find that there is insufficient evidence to indicate

that the claimant was not getting her full entitlement to supplementary

benefit. On her own evidence she was aware of additional requirements

at least in respect of laundry. The claimant has failed to establish that

her claim was not correctly dealt with."

5. The claimant then sought leave to appeal to a Commissioner on the grounds that the Tribunal erred in law in:-

"That I am very dissatisfied with the Chairman's decision as I am

aware that there were benefits which I did not receive in the past

when my handicapped child was younger and I at that time being a

single parent."

and in a letter she expanded her reasons by saying:-

"I fail to see how this decision was reached when there is no records

in connection with the period of time in question as to what benefit I

was paid, and I cannot state for definite what rate of benefit I received.

Therefore I appeal on those grounds which I think are accurate enough to be reviewed."

6. In a written submission before the hearing the Adjudication Officer commented in a letter dated 4 November 1993 as follows:-

"Mrs K... does not appear to have identified any point of law in which

the tribunal may have erred. She has stated in her application that she

was aware that there were benefits which she did not receive in the past,

and she would not be certain of the amount of supplementary benefit which she was awarded.

The tribunal in arriving at its decision appears to have given due

consideration to all the evidence before them and the hearing appears

to have ranged comprehensively over all aspects of the case. In the

recording of their decision and reasons for the decision they have stated

that Mrs K... was not entitled to additional requirements in respect

of heating, laundry, baths and clothing because there was insufficient

evidence to include that she was not getting her full entitlement to

supplementary benefit and that she had failed to establish that her claim

was not correctly dealt with.

Unfortunately in this case as all relevant documents have been destroyed

by the Department presumptions cannot be made about what evidence those documents might have contained (R(IS) 11/92, paragraph 38). Moreover Mrs K... cannot be given the "benefit of the doubt". If the evidence leaves the issue in doubt so that the balance of probability cannot be said to be in favour of a claimant the claim must fail (R(I) 32/61, paragraphs 10, 11 and 12).

I would therefore submit that the decision was one which the tribunal

were entitled to reach on the evidence before them; it is adequately

reasoned, and does not comprise any error of law."

and at the hearing reiterated his points raised in the letter.

7. Mr McLaughlin had gone into the matter very thoroughly, he argued that the Tribunal was entitled to come to the decision it came to. It rejected the argument that claimant had not been visited throughout the period in question by anyone from the Department.
8. I have considered the file in this matter and in particular the very long and detailed recordings of the proceedings before the Social Security Appeal Tribunal. It is clear that the Tribunal had a grasp of the whole issues involved and it set out its reasoning on the issue fully and clearly. It clearly took into account all relevant matters and while claimant may be discontented with the decision I can find no error of law in either the proceedings, findings of fact or the reasons for the decision. For that reason leave to appeal is refused.

(Signed): C C G McNally

COMMISSIONER