The claimant had written to make a claim under the Regulations: ‘I have received a letter about my National Insurance card. My card was lasted stamped by an employer on 4 July. I have not been employed since that date. Owing to illness I now have a small pension – is it necessary for me to stamp the card myself?’
Held: The letter itself was not a claim for benefit. It made no reference to sickness benefit and nothing in its terms justified the conclusion that it is a claim for benefit. He continued: ‘In my view, in order for the statutory authorities to find that a claim for benefit within regulation 2(1) has been made, there must be a document or documents (on the form approved by the Minister or accepted by him as sufficient) which appear on their face to make such a claim. It may be possible, for example, by reading form Med.5 with an accompanying letter to find that together they constitute a claim. But in my view it is not permissible to interpret form Med.5, or any other document, as a claim for benefit within regulation 2(1), merely because it may be possible to infer from the surrounding circumstances that in sending form Med.5, or the other document, the claimant must have been intending to claim benefit. That a claim for benefit is intended to be made must appear on the face of the document or documents which are alleged to amount to a claim. To hold otherwise would, I consider, ignore the requirement of regulation 2(1) that every claim for benefit shall be made in writing.’
Citations:
Unreported, 1963
Statutes:
National Insurance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1948 2(1)
Cited by:
Cited – CG 3844/2006 SSC 2006
The tribunal considered whether an email asking for ‘information on whatever benefits I am entitled to’ amounted to a ‘claim’ for benefits.
Held: Commissioner Turnbull said: ‘In my judgment, and this is the crux of the case, the terms of the . .
Cited – Novitskaya v London Borough of Brent and Another CA 1-Dec-2009
The claimant appealed refusal of her claim for arrears of housing benefit.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The claim had been defective in having been made informally, but ‘the distribution of benefits is different from many other areas of civil . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Benefits
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.551000