[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 >> [1994] NISSCSC C2-94 (Supp Ben) (24 June 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1994/C2_94_(Supp_Ben).html Cite as: [1994] NISSCSC C2-94 (Supp Ben)

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

[1994] NISSCSC C2-94 (Supp Ben) (24 June 1994)

 


Decision No: C2/94(SUPP BEN)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT Appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from the decision of the Belfast Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 12 May 1993
DECISION 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 relating to her entitlement to certain additional supplementary benefit payments.
2. I arranged an oral hearing of the application at which claimant did not appear but was represented by Mr O… K…, Solicitor and the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mrs McRory.
3. At the hearing I granted leave to appeal and with the consent of both parties treated the application as the appeal.
4. Briefly the facts are that in unfortunate and tragic circumstances which are detailed in the file but which is unnecessary for me to spell out, the claimant, who is now a grandmother of 78 years of age, assumed responsibility for her 3 grandchildren who were left without a mother and a father from 1980. This appeal relates to her entitlement to various supplementary payments in respect of herself and the costs incurred by her in caring for and maintaining her grandchildren.
5. Anyone reading the file could not help but be touched by the care and affection which was given to the children by their grandmother who was also a widow throughout the period. Sufficient it is to say that she got leave to appeal out of time against all decisions relating to the original decision on her claim for supplementary benefit and all subsequent decisions which failed to award additional payments. It is not disputed that the claimant received supplementary benefit from 17 February 1980 to 28 September 1982 and from 27 January 1986 to 10 April 1988, and there is no evidence of any claim for supplementary benefit prior to that time. The appeal would appear to be against any decision subsequent to February 1980.
6. The questions which have arisen and which were considered by the Social Security Appeal Tribunal were additional payments in respect of heating, laundry, baths, repairs, insurance and a dietary addition. Also the question of whether or not the claimant was entitled to long-term scale rate and also whether she was entitled to supplementary benefit from September 1982 until 27 January 1986.
7. The Social Security Appeal Tribunal went into the matter in great detail and with much thoroughness and gave a unanimous decision as follows:-

"Long term scale rate - appeal dismissed.

Supplementary benefit - 1982 to 1986 - appeal dismissed.

Heating - Appeal dismissed.

Laundry - Allow 5 machine washes x 37 pence each less Available Scale Margin per week. 21 March 1986 - 10 April 1988.

Baths - Allow 6 extra baths a week 27 March 1986 - 10 April 1988.

Repairs and Insurance - Appeal dismissed."

and detailed reasons for that decision as:-

"Long term scale rate - this was paid.

Supplementary Benefit 1982 to 1986 - no claim and no hard evidence of entitlement.

Heating - correct amounts and periods paid.

Laundry - substantially greater amount due to P...'s bedwetting.

Baths - for P..., a bedwetter."

8. Mr K… argued with great fortitude and at some length on the claimant's entitlement to the various additions, particularly laundry, baths and diet. Mrs McRory adopted what I considered to be a very proper and sympathetic view to the matter. However, without detailing the long and involved arguments the question of long-term scale rate was not really pursued by Mr K... as it would appear that the Tribunal was perfectly correct in dismissing that matter because she would have been receiving the long-term rate once she went over the age of 60 and she became 60 in 1976. The long-term rate would have been paid due to her age had she been in receipt of benefit.
9. As far as the supplementary benefit between September 1982 and January 1986 is concerned there was absolutely no evidence that she was entitled to benefit for that period. A claim had been made and withdrawn and I am satisfied as I think Mr K... was that the Tribunal was correct in dismissing that aspect of the appeal; as was the Tribunal correct in dismissing the heating appeal because heating was paid when there was an entitlement proved and that there was no entitlement proved during the period considered by the Tribunal. He was also satisfied, as I am that the Tribunal was perfectly correct in dismissing the appeal relating to repairs and maintenance as there was absolutely no evidence to support a claim in this regard.
10. That leaves laundry, baths and diet.

Laundry

The Tribunal allowed 5 machine washes at 37 pence each less available scale margin per week from 21 March 1986 to 10 April 1988. The Adjudication Officer has made the point that there was no finding as to how the amount of 37 pence was arrived at and drew attention to the regulation which allows for the amount by which the estimated average weekly cost exceeds 55 pence. I am satisfied that the Tribunal with such an experienced Chairman would have been well aware and have taken full cognisance of the Regulations and that the 37 pence was a figure which the Tribunal considered that the estimated average weekly cost exceeded 55 pence. I am satisfied that the Tribunal was correct in that aspect of the award and the 37 pence per wash was referred to in evidence recorded by the Chairman as being set out in a table submitted on behalf of the claimant showing the extent of her additional requirements for laundry which showed an excess of 37 pence per wash. However, the Tribunal recorded evidence on behalf of the claimant that she and P..., one of her grandchildren needed 6 extra washes a week each because P... wet the bed and the claimant had a bowel/kidney problem. While the Tribunal decided to award laundry for 5 machine washes Mrs McRory is now prepared to concede that there should have been an additional 5 washes per week awarded in respect of the claimant as well as the grandchild, I am satisfied that that is a proper concession. As far as the laundry is concerned the problem existed prior to 1986 and Mrs McRory is now prepared to accept that the grandmother required additional laundry from 17 February 1980 to 28 September 1982 at the same rate of 5 washes per week. Also in respect of P... 5 additional washes per week for the period from 17 February 1980 to 10 April 1980 and from 1 September 1981 to 28 September 1982 in respect of P... as the children were with the grandmother during that period. Although the Tribunal recorded "We note however that there is no mention of laundry problems prior to 1986 and we infer there was no problem in the 1980-1982 period for which there are reports", there was some evidence that the problems which the Tribunal found existed in 1986 also existed between 1980 and 1982 and that is supported by a medical report which has been handed to me which certifies that the grandmother has suffered from chronic pyelonephritis of both kidneys and had done so from April 1979. I would comment here that this evidence was not before the Tribunal but a less definite medical report which merely referred to the fact that she had been suffering from this chronic condition for many years and had mild chronic renal failure as a result.

Baths

The Tribunal awarded 6 extra baths per week from 27 March 1986. The Adjudication Officer now concedes that the evidence was that both the grandmother and the granddaughter P... required extra baths because of their conditions and that this pertained also from the 17 February 1980 to 28 September 1982 as far as the grandmother was concerned and from February 1980 to April 1980 and from September 1981 to September 1982 as far as P... was concerned and that each required 6 extra baths per week for that period.

11. Diet

The only other matter to be dealt with was the dietary addition and while there was evidence to support a claim for diet from 17 February 1980 to 28 September 1982 in respect of claimant because at that time she suffered from ulcerative colitis and as she was awarded the middle rate from 1988 I am satisfied that she is entitled to the middle rate for the period from 17 February 1980 to 28 September 1982.

12. While I find that the Tribunal erred in law in not making a finding in respect of diet and also in respect of baths and the additional laundry, I am satisfied the Tribunal went into the matter very thoroughly and carefully and that the kernel of the matter was dealt with in a more than satisfactory manner and it is quite understandable that small details can be overlooked in a long and involved hearing considering the pressure and the time-scale under which the Tribunal has to work and no blame or fault can be attached to the Tribunal in any shape or form.
13. For the reasons set out above I allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the Tribunal and by virtue of the power vested in me made the findings of fact which I have made above and now give the decision which the Tribunal should have given, which is -

(1) Long-term scale rate - appeal dismissed.

(2) Supplementary Benefit 1982-1986 - appeal dismissed.

(3) Heating - appeal dismissed.

(4) Repairs and Insurance - appeal dismissed.

(5) Laundry - 10 machine washes from February 1980 to April 1980 and from September 1981 to September 1982 and from 21 March 1986 to 10 April 1988 and 5 machine washes from April 1980 to September 1981. I adopt the figure of 37 pence per wash used by the Tribunal as I am satisfied it is correct.

(6) Baths - 12 extra baths per week from February 1980 to April 1980 and from September 1981 to September 1982 and from 21 March 1986 to 10 April 1988 and 6 baths per week from April 1980 to September 1981.

(7) Diet - middle rate from 17 February 1980 to 28 September 1982 for the claimant.

(8) As the 3 children were living with her from 1 September 1981 she is entitled to an increase of her supplementary benefit in respect of the 3 children at the rate appropriate to their age up to 28 September 1982 when her entitlement to supplementary benefit ceased.

14. I am indebted to both parties for the assistance which they gave me in resolving this long and involved matter.

(Signed): C C G McNally

COMMISSIONER

24 June 1994