Category: Benefits

JS and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Others: QBD 5 Nov 2013

The claimants challenged the benefits cap introduced under the 2012 Act, saying that it was discriminatory, affecting more women than men. Mr Eadie QC submitted on behalf of the Secretary of State that, as ‘an international instrument with no binding effect in English law’, the Convention had no bearing on the case.
Held: That suggestion was rejected. Notwithstanding the fact that the UNCRC is an international convention which has not been incorporated into our domestic law, the court should nevertheless have regard to it as a matter of Convention jurisprudence
Elias LJ said: ‘It was obvious from the outset that the introduction of the cap would have severe and immediate consequences for claimants who had been receiving substantially in excess of the relevant amount’ and ‘The two items most likely to trigger the operation of the cap [are] housing benefit [and] the number of children in the family. Housing benefit reflects (but does not necessarily meet in full) the cost of housing, whether social or private. Accordingly, the cap will bear most heavily on those in receipt of benefit who live in areas where rental costs are high. In practical terms, therefore, this means that those who live in London or in the centre of other big cities where rents tend to be high will be most likely to be affected. It is a striking feature of the scheme – and lies at the heart of this application – that the cap applies equally to a childless couple in an area with cheap and plentiful social housing as it does to a lone parent mother of several children in inner London compelled to rent on the private market.’

Judges:

Elias LJ, Bean J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 3350 (QB), [2013] WLR(D) 425, [2014] PTSR 23

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Welfare Reform Act 2012, Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012, European Convention on Human Rights 14 A1P1, Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – SG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Others CA 21-Feb-2014
The claimants challenged the manner of implementation of a benefits cap under the 2012 Act, sayig that it was discriminatory. . .
At first instance – SG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 18-Mar-2015
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings . .
Cited – MA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 9-Nov-2016
The appellants claimed housing benefit. They appealed against rejection of their claims that the imposition of limits to the maximum sums payable, ‘the bedroom tax’, was unlawful on equality grounds. The claimants either had disabilities, or lived . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.517385

Bracking and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another: Admn 24 Apr 2013

‘The claimants are all severely disabled people who are current users of the Independent Living Fund (ILF). They seek judicial review of two decisions of the defendant Secretary of State. The first is the consultation engaged in between July and October 2012 as to the impact of the proposed closure of the ILF and the second is the decision made in December 2012 to close the fund.’
Held: The request for judicial review was dismissedm

Judges:

Blake J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 897 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Bracking and Others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 6-Nov-2013
Application for permission to appeal against refusal of leave to bring judicial review of decision by the respondent to close the Independent Living Fund.
Held: McCombe LJ summarised the application of section 149 of the 2010 Act: ‘1 . . . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Discrimination, Benefits

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.472949

Murphy v The United Kingdom: ECHR 28 Aug 2008

Admissiblity – The applicant’s wife died on 1 February 1996. On 20 September 2000 the applicant applied for widows’ benefits and his claim was rejected. On 28 September 2000 the applicant requested reconsideration; however, the previous decision was confirmed by an appeal tribunal some time later. The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.

Judges:

Lech Garlicki, P

Citations:

28044/02, [2008] ECHR 868

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Benefits, Discrimination

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276555

Gray, Regina (on the Application of) v Bristol City Council: Admn 3 Sep 2008

The taxpayer had been receiving jobseekers allowance. He received an award of damages for personal injury, and the respondent council suspended his housing benefit. He now sought judicial review of that decision. The council asked several silly questions about his circumstances. The council now said that the suspension had been temporary, and that the proceedings were unnecessary, and sought costs.
Held: Permission to bring a review was refused.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2212 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating, Benefits

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276534

Von Chamier-Glisczinski v Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse: ECJ 11 Sep 2008

ECJ Opinion – Social security for migrant workers benefits in case of dependency benefits in kind Article 19, paragraph 1 of Regulation No 1408/71 Citizenship of the Union

Judges:

Mengozzi AG

Citations:

C-208/07, [2008] EUECJ C-208/07 – O

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Von Chamier-Glisczinski v Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse ECJ 16-Jul-2009
ECJ Social security – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 Title III, Chapter 1 Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 49 EC – Benefits in kind intended to cover the risk of reliance on care Residence in a Member State other than the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Benefits

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276396

KR, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another: Admn 30 Jul 2008

The claimant had been involved in child contact and residence proceedings as a result of which the children travelled extensively between two towns. He now appealed after withdrawal of the community care grants made to meet the cost of the travel.

Judges:

Bean J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1881 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Benefits

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.272814

Parekh v The United Kingdom: ECHR 26 Oct 1998

Admissibility – The applicant’s wife died on 18 July 2000 leaving one child born in 1982. On 17 April 2001 the applicant applied for widows’ benefits. On 1 May 2001 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed. The applicant asked for reconsideration. On 14 February 2002 the matter was reconsidered and the decision remained unchanged.
The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
The applicant was in receipt of child benefit at the time of his claim. He ceased to be eligible for such benefit on 25 December 2001. The applicant has been in receipt of income support since his wife’s death which exceeded the rate of Widowed Mother’s Allowance. Moreover, the applicant’s wife had not paid the required national insurance contributions.
Held: Inadmissible

Judges:

Lech Garlicki, P

Citations:

25388/02, [2008] ECHR 614

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Benefits, Discrimination

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.272750

Larcher v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bayern Sud: ECJ 18 Dec 2014

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social security for migrant workers – Article 45 TFEU – Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Old-age benefits – Principle of non-discrimination – Worker who, prior to retirement, has participated, in a Member State, in a part-time work scheme for older employees – Consideration for entitlement to an old-age pension in another Member State

Judges:

A Tizzano, P

Citations:

C-523/13, [2014] EUECJ C-523/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2458

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.540329

X v Information Commissioner and First Tier Tribunal: UTAA 7 Dec 2010

UTAA Application for permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (Information Rights), dated 23 July 2010, to refuse to extend time to admit the applicant’s late appeal. The applicant has also applied for permission to apply for judicial review of the same decision. The two applications have been dealt with together in the Upper Tribunal as they essentially raise the same issues.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 432 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.433617

(Un-named) R(FC) 1/91: SSCS 17 Jan 1991

SSCS Income – earnings of self-employed earner – whether motoring expenses and telephone expenses for both business and personal use may be apportioned – whether bad debts deductible – whether capital drawings relevant
The claimant, who was self-employed in partnership with her husband and supplied accounts of the business, claimed family credit. The adjudication officer in awarding family credit did not allow amounts shown in the accounts for depreciation, bad debts, lunches, private motoring expenses and the private use of the telephone. The claimant appealed against the decision. In his submission to the tribunal the adjudication officer said that since the claimant and her husband had taken two weeks holiday during the period of the accounts, the calculation of earnings should have been based on a fifty week assessment period. The tribunal, in allowing the appeal, directed that the award of family credit be recalculated to allow as expenses bad debts, lunches, private use of the telephone and private motoring expenses. The adjudication officer appealed to the Commissioner.
Held that:
expenses that could be apportioned were motoring expenses including road fund licence, insurance and repairs and maintenance, and telephone expenses including rental charges. (Insofar as the Adjudication Officers’ Guide was inconsistent it was not to be followed R(SB) 28/84 cited). Apportionment by tax inspectors was cogent evidence of the amount used for the business and should be accepted in the absence of contrary evidence;
bad debts relevant to the period were deductible; entertainment lunches were not (paras. 36 and 37);
capital drawings should be treated as such; where there was a dispute as to whether a sum was capital or income commercial accounting principles were to be followed, unless they conflicted with the regulations (para. 38);
the effect of holiday and the application of the change in the regulations on 12 September 1988 was considered at paragraphs 1(8) and 24 and the first appendix.

Citations:

[1991] UKSSCSC CFC – 25 – 1989

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Bates v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 1968
Section 402, on its plain meaning, produced results in some cases which were ‘monstrous’ and which Parliament can never have intended. The Commissioners had not sought to amend the legislation, but realising the monstrous result of giving effect to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.269588

Page and Davis v Chief Adjudication Officer: SSCS 24 Jun 1991

Recovery of overpayment – overpayment due to innocent failure to disclose a material fact – whether recoverable
A widow who claimed and received supplementary benefit failed to disclose to the local office of the Department of Social Security that she had received widows benefit. As a consequence there was an overpayment of supplementary benefit. It was accepted that her failure to disclose was wholly innocent. The Commissioner rejected the claimant’s argument that on its true construction section 53(1) of the Social Security Act 1986 does not catch innocent misrepresentation or innocent failure to disclose. On 24 June 1991 the Court of Appeal (Dillon, Woolf and Leggatt LJJ) dismissed an appeal by the claimant and held that:
the wording of section 53(1) was plain and unambiguous and covers innocent as well as fraudulent misrepresentation and non-disclosure.

Judges:

Dillon, Woolf and Leggatt LJJ

Citations:

[1991] UKSSCSC CSB – 72 – 1990

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Act 1986 53(1)

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.269608

Secretary of State v Tunnicliffe: SSCS 13 Dec 1990

Recovery of overpayment – payment made before repeal of section 119 of the Social Security Act 1975 – whether claimant had an ‘acquired’ or ‘accrued’ right that survived the repeal

Citations:

[1990] UKSSCSC CG – 53 – 1988

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Act 1975 119

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for Social Security v Tunnicliffe CA 1991
Staughton LJ considered the interpretation of an Act of Parliament to give it retrospective powers: ‘In my judgment the true principle is that Parliament is presumed not to have intended to alter the law applicable to past events and transactions in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Constitutional

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.269654

(Un-named): SSCS 18 Jan 1993

Tribunal practice – reliance on specialist knowledge of tribunal member not disclosed to the parties – whether breach of the rules of natural justice
The claim was in respect of invalidity benefit. On 8 August 1989 an adjudication officer decided on review that from 22 August 1989 the claimant had not proved that he was incapable of work. The SSAT upheld the decision of the AO following advice from a tribunal member who had experience of work carried out by handicapped people. The claimant appealed to the Commissioner.
Held that:
the AO and SSAT misdirected themselves on the onus of proof. On review and revision of an award the onus is on the AO to establish incapacity for work (para. 3);
there was a breach of natural justice because the specialist knowledge of the member of the tribunal was not presented as evidence. The claimant’s representative was not given the opportunity to comment;
because of their inquisitorial role SSATs are not bound by the strict rules of evidence. Members are not restricted to drawing on expertise to elevate evidence. Unlike justices, who exercise a wholly judicial function, they may present evidence on the tribunal based on personal knowledge;
it was open to the member of the tribunal to speak of specialist knowledge which was in the nature of evidence. This evidence should however have been presented at the hearing where all parties would have the opportunity to challenge it. It must not be given to the tribunal in the privacy of their deliberations (para. 4).
The Commissioner set aside the decision of the tribunal and remitted the appeal to be heard by a differently constituted SSAT (para. 5).

Citations:

[1993] UKSSCSC CS – 142 – 1991

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Natural Justice

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.269500

(Un-named): SSCS 17 Sep 2001

The Claimant is a man now aged 40 who became incapable of work on 27 October 1997, the cause of incapacity being certified by his doctor to be general debility. He did not, however, satisfy the contribution conditions for an award of incapacity benefit, and was awarded incapacity credits.

Judges:

Mr C Turnbull

Citations:

[2001] UKSSCSC CIB – 849 – 2001

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.269415

(Un-named): SSCS 8 Mar 2000

The claimant’s eligible housing costs for the purposes of the calculation of entitlement to Income Support include the interest on so much of the loans taken out by the claimant and her husband as was used within the period specified in paragraph 16(1) of schedule 3 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 for the purpose of providing a third bedroom in their home. The claimant’s entitlement to Income Support will be reassessed on that basis with further recourse to the tribunal in the event of disagreement as to the amount of benefit payable.

Citations:

[2000] UKSSCSC CIS – 1678 – 1999

Links:

Bailii

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.269225

(Un-named): SSCS 7 Feb 2005

Housing and council tax benefit – appeal against the decision of the appeal tribunal setting aside the decision of the tribunal for error of law and, because matters of evidence and fact are in issue, remit the case for rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal.

Citations:

[2005] UKSSCSC CH – 1231 – 2004

Links:

Bailii

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.269456

(Un-named) CDLA/419/1994: SSCS 20 Mar 1996

The court was asked whether the claimant was entitled to the mobility component of disability living allowance. She had been awarded the care component at the lowest rate, and seemingly entitlement to a higher rate was not in issue. In the event, the tribunal, upholding the decision of the adjudication officer, decided that the claimant was not entitled to the mobility component.

Citations:

[1996] UKSSCSC CDLA – 419 – 1994

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268976

(Un-named) DLA: SSCS 1 May 1998

Disability Living Allowance – Evidence – examining medical practitioner – whether evidence of an examining medical practitioner should normally prevail over a claimant’s evidence

Citations:

[1998] UKSSCSC CSDLA – 856 – 1997

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.269126

(Un-named) R(S) 2/98: SSCS 17 Jul 1997

Tribunal practice – claimant asserting that his capacity for work has deteriorated since review decision terminating an award of invalidity benefit – whether tribunal obliged to consider capacity for work down to the date of their decision

Citations:

[1997] UKSSCSC CS – 12054 – 1996

Links:

Bailii

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.269071

(Un-named) (Forfeiture): SSCS 20 Nov 1997

Commissioners’ jurisdiction – Forfeiture Act 1982 – whether Commissioner able to modify forfeiture of social security benefits in cases of unlawful killing – principles affecting exercise of discretion

Citations:

[1997] UKSSCSC CG – 14509 – 1996

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Forfeiture Act 1982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.269087

(Un-named) (Invalidity Pension): SSCS 20 May 1997

Claim – claimant relying on a decision of the Court of Appeal – whether tribunal bound by section 68 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992
On 2 December 1992, the Court of Appeal held in Cottingham and Geary v. Chief Adjudication Officer and Secretary of State for Social Security (reported as R(P) 1/93) that occupational pensions did not qualify as ‘earnings’ for the purposes of calculating a claimant’s entitlement to an increase of benefit in respect of a dependant. On 5 December 1992, legislation reversed that decision. On 16 March 1993, the claimant claimed an increase of invalidity pension in respect of his wife who was in receipt of an occupational pension which, if treated as earnings, would have had the effect that the increase was not payable. The adjudication officer decided that the claimant was entitled to the increase only from 2 December 1992 to 4 December 1992, on the basis that the occupational pension prevented payment under the new legislation from 5 December 1992 and that payment before the date of the Court of Appeal’s decision was precluded by section 68 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Section 68 provided that, where a court had found a decision of an adjudication officer to have been erroneous in point of law and a claim in another case would, apart from section 68, have fallen to be determined in accordance with the decision of the court, entitlement in respect of a period before the date of the decision of the court should be determined as thought the court had not found the adjudication officer to have erred in law. The claimant appealed to a tribunal who considered that, as an appellate body, they were not bound by section 68 and awarded the increase from a date before 2 December 1992. The adjudication officer appealed.
Held, allowing the appeal, that:
the House of Lords’ decision in Bate v. Chief Adjudication Officer (reported as R(IS) 12/96) applied to section 68 (claims) as it applied to section 69 (reviews) and therefore, when section 68 restricted the power of an adjudication officer to award benefit, it equally restricted the power of a tribunal to award benefit on appeal from that adjudication officer;
the Court of Appeal in Cottingham and Geary had indirectly found erroneous in law the adjudication officers’ decisions refusing benefit in the cases before them and section 68 therefore operated in the present case to prevent the increase of invalidity pension being awarded before the date of the Court of Appeal’s decisio

Citations:

[1997] UKSSCSC CS – 184 – 1994

Links:

Bailii

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.269051