[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 C5-94(Supp Ben) (2 November 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1994/C5-94(Supp_Ben).html Cite as: [1994] NISSCSC C5-94(Supp Ben)

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

[1994] NISSCSC C5-94(Supp Ben) (2 November 1994)

 


Decision No: C5/94(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 Application made out of time by the above-named claimant for leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from the decision of the Lurgan Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 11 October 1993 DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is a late application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal which upheld the Adjudication Officer's decision not to review claimant's entitlement to additional payments in respect of supplementary benefit prior to 11 April 1988.
2. I arranged an oral hearing of the application at which claimant was represented by Mr P… M…, Solicitor and the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mrs McRory.
3. Briefly the facts are that the claimant is a single man now aged 65 years of age, who is currently in receipt of invalidity benefit, disability living allowance and income support. In September 1991 he requested a review of the amount of supplementary benefit paid to him prior to 11 April 1988 and in particular he sought extra payment in respect of heating and laundry because of his physical condition at that time. He also sought leave to appeal appealed against the original decisions in respect of supplementary benefit and all subsequent decisions which failed to award the additional amount but as that application was out of time leave to appeal was refused by the Chairman, who also refused to grant an extension of time to allow an appeal. However, an appeal was heard by a Social Security Appeal Tribunal against the Adjudication Officer's decision to refuse to review the previous award of supplementary benefit.
4. Claimant did not attend that Tribunal but indicated that the Tribunal could proceed in his absence. The Tribunal found the facts of the case as set out in the submission by the Adjudication Officer were not in dispute and found that he had claimed and received supplementary benefit from 18 May 1987 and noted that he suffered at that time from occasional bronchitis and that no additional requirements were appropriate and disallowed the appeal and gave reasons for its disallowance as:-

"Mr L... has failed to show grounds to review any decision awarding

supplementary benefit (ie that the decision was made in ignorance of

a material fact or based on a mistake as to a material fact or given

in error of law) Section 104 Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975."

5. Claimant sought leave to appeal against that decision on the grounds that the Chairman made a decision based on insufficient evidence in relation to the claimant's medical condition.
6. Before the hearing, Mr M... on behalf of the claimant, submitted a medical report from claimant's GP dated 30 June 1994 and at the hearing before me argued that because of claimant's condition when he was in receipt of supplementary benefit he was entitled to both the heating and the laundry allowance. He said if he had been given the heating his medical condition would have improved and that the reason he was only appealing now was because he was in ignorance of the regulations. He argued that there was not sufficient medical evidence before either the Tribunal or the Adjudication Officer to enable them to come to a proper decision on the matter.
7. Mrs McRory said that for this appeal to succeed the onus was on the claimant to show that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the appeal and argued that claimant had not shown any grounds which would enable either the Tribunal or the Adjudication Officer to review the previous decision. Mrs McRory said that it was clear from the records that whenever claimant was visited in 1988 it was recorded that he had bronchitis at times but his general health was good and on the basis of that no additional payments were awarded. Although Mr M... had argued that he needs regular skin care and regular laundry, nevertheless that evidence was not available to the Adjudication Officer at the time nor was it available to the Tribunal and she argued that it was difficult to see what error the Tribunal made and that if claimant was to discharge the onus which rested upon him before the Tribunal and before the Commissioner then he would be obliged to show that there were facts not taken into consideration.
8. I have considered all that has been said and I have read all the papers. In claimant's application for leave to appeal in this matter claimant records:- "I have had chest trouble nearly all my life though it has got very bad over the past few years", and in his GP's report he also say:- "It is my opinion that Mr L...'s condition has slowly deteriorated over the last few years." So it is difficult to see what fault can be found with the Adjudication Officer decision in 1988 or prior to that date as there is absolutely no evidence to support claimant's contention that he would have been entitled to a heating or laundry allowance at that date.
9. At the hearing I granted the late application for special reasons, granted leave to appeal and with the consent of both parties treated the hearing of the application as the appeal, but for the reasons set out above I can find no error in law in the Tribunal's findings or reasons for decision and I therefore dismiss this appeal.

(Signed): C C G McNally

COMMISSIONER

2 November 1994