Tag: Benefits

(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

Barton v Chief Adjudication Officer: CA 16 May 1996

Applicable amount – child maintained by local authority at residential educational establishment – whether ‘resident’ and to be treated as possessing income
The claimant’s income support was reduced by virtue of income attributed to children under regulation 44(3) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 because they attended a boarding school in Norfolk and the fees were paid by the local education authority in Essex. That decision was upheld by a social security appeal tribunal. The claimant appealed to the Commissioner on the grounds that the children were not ‘resident’ at the school as they attended in only certain weeks of the year. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal because it was logical that there should be a reduction of income support while the children were living elsewhere and there was no reason to distinguish between part year attendance and attendance for all 52 weeks of a year. The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Held, dismissing the appeal, that:
there is no authority for the proposition that a child cannot be resident at a school where he boards for only 35 weeks of the year;
securing the provision of boarding school accommodation in another County by direct payment of fees satisfies the requirement for maintenance in regulation 44(3)(a) so that the child must be treated as possessing the income prescribed.

Judges:

Stuart-Smith, Peter Gibson and Thorpe LJJ

Citations:

[1996] UKSSCSC CIS – 164 – 1994

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268990

(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

(Un-named) (Incapacity Benefit): SSCS 1997

The question for determination by the tribunal was whether the claimant was able to satisfy the ‘All Work Test’ i.e. to show that he was incapable of all work. In order to succeed, he had to qualify for 15 points, as provided for in the Schedule to the 1995 Regulations. The adjudication officer had not been prepared to award any points, but although on appeal the tribunal accepted that the claimant scored 14 points, this was not enough to satisfy the All Work Test, with the result that the claimant could not be regarded as incapable of work.

Citations:

[1997] UKSSCSC CIB – 14587 – 1996

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.269021

(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) 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) (DLA): SSCS 19 Apr 1995

Tribunal practice – appeal in respect of mobility component – whether tribunal obliged to consider existing entitlement to care component – disability living allowance

Citations:

[1995] UKSSCSC CSDLA – 180 – 1994

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268927

(Un-named) – R(IS) 3/96: SSCS 25 Apr 1995

Capital – farm – whether farmland part of ‘premises’ occupied by the claimant’s husband
The claimant had lived on a farm of which she was the joint owner with her husband. On 2 July 1992 she went to live in a residential care home on a permanent basis. Her husband continued to live in the farmhouse. Income support was awarded from 2 July 1992. It was later established that the value of the farmland was about andpound;35,000. The land was farmed by a partnership of the claimant’s husband and son; it was accepted that the land, which had its own access, could be sold separately from the farmhouse. The adjudication officer reviewed the decision awarding income support, deciding that although the value of the farmhouse could be disregarded under paragraph 4(b) of Schedule 10 to the Income Support (General) Regulations, the value of the farmland could not. The claimant was therefore not entitled to income support because her capital exceeded the prescribed limit of andpound;8,000. The tribunal allowed the claimant’s appeal holding that the value of the claimant’s interest in the farm was nil as she would be unlikely to find a willing purchaser without her husband’s agreement to a sale. The adjudication officer appealed to the Commissioner.
Held that:
‘premises’ in paragraph 4 of Schedule 10 to the Income Support (General) Regulations was to be interpreted in line with the definition of ‘dwelling occupied as the home’ in regulation 2(1). The first four paragraphs of Schedule 10 were all concerned with disregarding the claimant’s home or what would be the home if the claimant was in actual occupation, and thus it was entirely consistent for ‘premises’ in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 to be given a similar interpretation. The tribunal had therefore not erred in law by failing to apply paragraph 4 of Schedule 10 to the whole of the farm;
However the tribunal had erred in law by not considering regulation 52 of the Income Support (General) Regulations. The effect of regulation 52 was to deem the claimant to have an equal undivided share as beneficial tenant in common of the farm (see Chief Adjudication Officer v. Palfrey and para. 49 of CIS/391/1992[R(IS) 26/95]);
although there were grounds for review of the decision to award income support because it was given in ignorance of the facts relating to the claimant’s beneficial interest in the farm, the adjudication officer had not shown that the decision to award the claimant income support should be revised (para. 29). The District Valuer’s valuation of the claimant’s interest seemed to have been based on the revenue approach which was inconsistent with the approach required by paragraphs 53 and 54 of CIS/391/1992 [R(IS) 26/95]. Moreover it was based on an assumption that an order for sale of the farm was likely to be granted but this seemed doubtful in the circumstances. Accordingly the adjudication officer had not shown that the claimant’s notional share of the farm had a market value which was sufficient to affect her entitlement to income support;
the claimant was therefore entitled to income support until her death on 2 February 1994

Citations:

[1995] UKSSCSC CIS – 767 – 1993

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268925

(Un-named) – R(U) 1/96: SSCS 25 Apr 1995

Voluntary unemployment – claimant giving notice of resignation but employer requiring her to leave immediately – whether claimant ‘voluntarily left … employment without just cause’
The claimant gave her employer four weeks notice on 9 December 1992. On 10 December 1992 the employer informed her that he wished her to leave the next day, 11 December 1992. The adjudication officer decided that the claimant was to be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit for eight weeks on the ground that she had voluntary left her employment without just cause. The social security appeal tribunal upheld that decision. The claimant appealed to a social security Commissioner.
Held that:
when the claimant gave notice to leave she thereby terminated her employment and this amounted to a voluntary leaving by the claimant. This was not altered by her employer’s subsequent action, whether that was to be construed as not requiring her to work out her notice or as a counter-notice. However, the employer’s action was highly relevant in deciding the length of the disqualification in this case was one week.

Citations:

[1995] UKSSCSC CU – 151 – 1993

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268928

(Un-named) (DB): SSCS 24 Apr 1995

Prescribed disease A10 (occupational deafness) – felling trees in forest area to clear way for roads – whether ‘forestry’ – The claimant claimed disablement benefit in respect of prescribed disease A10 (occupational deafness) on 24 April 1991. From 1978 to March 1991 he had worked for a road construction company. He was employed to clear forest areas, using a chain saw to fell the trees and cut them into logs. He contended that this occupation was prescribed in relation to occupational deafness because it involved ‘the use of chain saws in forestry’ (sub-paragraph (i) of A10). A tribunal allowed the claimant’s appeal against the adjudication officer’s refusal of his claim. The adjudication officer appealed to a social security Commissioner.
Held that:
the claimant’s occupation did not fall within the meaning of ‘forestry’ in paragraph A10 of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1985. His work involved the destruction of forest areas, not the preservation of them. The fact that his work included the cutting down of trees did not mean that his occupation fell within the definition of ‘forestry’ (Meally v. McGowan 39 SLR 662 applied).

Citations:

[1995] UKSSCSC CI – 362 – 1994

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268924

Hartmann v Freistaat Bayern: ECJ 18 Jul 2007

Europa (Grand Chamber) (Free Movement Of Persons) Frontier worker Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 Transfer of residence to another Member State Non-working spouse Child-raising allowance Not granted to spouse Social advantage Residence condition.

Judges:

V Skouris, P

Citations:

[2007] EUECJ C-212/05, [2008] All ER (EC) 1166, [2007] ECR I-6303, ECLI:EU:C:2007:437

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Hartmann v Freistaat Bayern ECJ 28-Sep-2006
Opinion – Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community – Concept of worker – German official having transferred his permanent residence to Austria while . .

Cited by:

Cited – Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 16-Mar-2011
The claimant challenged as incompatible with EU law, the Regulations which restricted the entitlement to state pension credit to those entitled to reside in the UK.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The conditions imposed by the Regulations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258594

Abdirahman v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 5 Jul 2007

The appellants were economically inactive EEA nationals who were lawfully present in the UK and who appealed against refusal of their claims for social security benefits under Articles 12 18.
Held: The appeal failed. For Art 12, the benefits including income support were ‘not within the scope of application of the Treaty’. As to Art 18, Lloyd LJ analysed the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice before concluding: ‘It seems to me, on the basis of those decisions, in particular that of Trojani’s case . . that Article 18 EC does not create a right of residence for an EU citizen in another Member State, in a case in which the limitations imposed under Council Directive 90/364/EEC are not satisfied, and that those limitations are proportionate to the legitimate objective in protecting the public finances of the host Member State.’

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt Ch, Lloyd LJ, Moses LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 657, [2008] 1 WLR 254, [2007] 4 All ER 882

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kaczmarek v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 27-Nov-2008
The claimant entered the UK as a student coming from Poland. She then worked as a kitchen maid, but having left that job on becoming a mother was refused income support. She later returned to work. She said that the rules which denied her benefit . .
Cited – Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 16-Mar-2011
The claimant challenged as incompatible with EU law, the Regulations which restricted the entitlement to state pension credit to those entitled to reside in the UK.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The conditions imposed by the Regulations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, European

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254459

RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 28 Jun 2007

Whether a person who is entitled to income support and who would otherwise be entitled to disability premium as part of his IS loses his entitlement to DP during any period in which he is ‘without accommodation’.

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 614, [2007] 1 WLR 3067

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 13-Jul-2006
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 22-Oct-2008
The 1987 Regulations provided additional benefits for disabled persons, but excluded from benefit those who had nowhere to sleep. The claimant said this was irrational. He had been receiving the disability premium to his benefits, but this was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Human Rights

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253748

Commission v Parliament and Council (Free Movement of Persons): ECJ 3 May 2007

ECJ Action for annulment – Social security – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Articles 4(2a) and 10a – Annex IIa – Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 – Special non-contributory benefits

Citations:

[2007] EUECJ C-299/05, [2007] ECR I-8695

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 647/2005

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Applied – Molenaar v Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Baden-Wurttemberg ECJ 5-Mar-1998
ECJ (Judgment) Freedom of movement for workers – Benefits designed to cover the risk of reliance on care . .
Applied – Jauch v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter ECJ 8-Mar-2001
ECJ (Judgment) Social security for migrant workers – Austrian scheme of insurance against the risk of reliance on care – Classification of benefits and lawfulness of the residence condition from the point of view . .

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Tolley SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court was asked whether the United Kingdom is precluded, by Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and members of their families moving within the Community, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.251894

(Un-named) (Armed Forces Pension): SSCS 20 Oct 2006

Whether a person in a marriage-like relationship with a former member of the armed forces whose death is due to service is entitled to a pension under the Naval, Military and Air Force Etc (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983 although she does not meet the conditions of Article 29 (pensions to widows and widowers) or Article 30 (pensions to certain unmarried dependants who lived as spouses). The argument for entitlement is based on interpreting those provisions so as not to contravene the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and in particular Article 14 on discrimination.

Citations:

[2006] UKSSCSC CAF – 52 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Armed Forces, Benefits

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249711

(Un-named) (DLA) CDLA – 1365 – 2005: SSCS 22 Mar 2006

The commissioners were asked whether and the extent to which the effects of alcohol consumption are relevant in determining entitlement to disability living allowance (‘DLA’), particularly where the relevant effects are the immediate and transient consequences of that consumption.

Citations:

[2006] UKSSCSC CDLA – 1365 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241264

Richards v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Social Policy): ECJ 27 Apr 2006

Ms Richards, previously a married male, had undergone gender re-assignment surgery. She remained married thereafter. Ms Richards applied to the DWP for a pension from the age of 60. That was refused by the Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions (‘SSWP’), so Ms Richards appealed to a Social Security Commissioner. In October 2004 the Commissioner applied to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling on whether the SSWP’s refusal was lawful under the terms of Council Directive 79/7/ EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security.
Held: On the correct interpretation of Articles 4 and 7 of Directive 79/7/EC the refusal of a retirement pension to a male to female transsexual until the age of 65 was prohibited if that person would have been entitled to such a pension at the age of 60 had she been held to be a woman as a matter of national law. Ms Richards was entitled to receive a state pension from the age of 60.

Citations:

Times 05-May-2006, C-423/04, [2006] EUECJ C-423/04, [2006] ECR I-3585, [2006] Fam Law 639, [2006] 3 FCR 229, [2006] 2 CMLR 49, [2006] CEC 637, [2006] Pens LR 123, [2006] ICR 1181, [2006] 2 FLR 487, [2006] All ER (EC) 895

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 79/7/ EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Timbrell v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 22-Jun-2010
The claimant had undertaken male to female treatment including surgery and lived as a woman, though continuing to live with her wife. She sought payment of a pension at 60, but was refused. The regulations required a gender recognition certificate . .
Cited – MB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 5-Jul-2016
The court was asked about the age at which entitlement to a pension began for someone of transgender.
Held: The court was divided, and the issue was referred to the European Court of Justice. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Benefits

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241324