[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 >> [1995] NISSCSC A103/95(DLA) (23 August 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1995/A103_95(DLA).html Cite as: [1995] NISSCSC A103/95(DLA)

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

[1995] NISSCSC A103/95(DLA) (23 August 1995)

 


Application No: A103/95(DLA)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE Application by the claimant for leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from the decision of the Disability Appeal Tribunal dated 23 August 1995
DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of the Disability Appeal Tribunal sitting at Ballymena, whereby it was decided that she was not entitled to the care component of disability living allowance, but that she was entitled to the higher rate of the mobility component for the period from 1 August 1995 to 31 August 1997.
2. The grounds upon which the claimant relies as set out in her notice of application for leave to appeal, are as follows:-

[The Tribunal] "Wrongly interpreted legislation/Didn't seem to

understand that WITHOUT MY HUSBAND I can't manage. So because

my husband is there they think I'm not entitled to Care Allowance.

My point is as stated in my letter if I had been on my own I think

I would have been awarded the component, last letter explains."

In addition the claimant has raised further points of criticism of the Tribunal's decision in a series of letters. The principal points may be summarised as follows:-

(a) That her award of the higher rate of the mobility component

should have been backdated to the date on which her claim was

first made. It is said that, because of delays and a

cancellation, the claimant had been kept waiting for 8 months

for her appeal to be heard, and in consequence had lost a lot of

her allowance.

This was the claimant's first and at the outset her only criticism

of the Tribunal's decision. It remains her most persistent

complaint.

(b) That the Tribunal failed to have regard to the fact that the

claimant relied heavily upon her husband for assistance, and

could not manage on her own. The suggestion is that the

Tribunal used the presence of her husband and the help which

he provided as an excuse for withholding an award of the care

component.

This is more or less the same point as that made in the notice

of application.

(c) That the claimant's condition is worsening and she can now do

less and less for herself.

3. I propose to deal first with the claimant's complaint that, because of the delay in the hearing of her appeal, she lost allowance to which she would otherwise have been entitled. Having studied the Tribunal's decision I am fully satisfied that there is no question of any such loss having been sustained. The Tribunal specifically held that the claimant had satisfied the conditions for the award of the higher rate mobility component since 1 May 1995. By virtue of the provisions of section 73(9)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, there is a qualifying period of 3 months during which the conditions of entitlement are satisfied, which must first elapse before a claimant can be entitled to an award of the mobility component of disability living allowance. The Tribunal were accordingly obliged to postpone the commencement of the award of the mobility component until 3 months from the date on which the claimant satisfied the conditions of entitlement. This meant that, regardless of when the appeal was heard, the earliest date for the commencement of the award was 1 August 1995.
4. Turning now to the claimant's complaint that the Tribunal failed to have regard to the assistance given by her husband, I am of the opinion that this too is without substance. I can find nothing to suggest that the Tribunal discounted the help which the claimant received, or used it as an excuse for their failure to award the care component.
5. Finally, so far as any worsening of the claimant's condition is concerned, the Tribunal clearly cannot be faulted for failing to take account of needs which may have arisen since the date of the hearing. If the claimant's disability has indeed increased to the extent that she can now do less and less for herself, she should consider submitting a further claim for disability living allowance. Her current needs for attention or supervision would then be investigated and a decision reached on her possible entitlement.
6. Having considered all aspects of this case, including the grounds relied upon by the claimant in her notice of application and correspondence, the conclusion which I have reached is that there are no grounds for holding that the decision of the Disability Appeal Tribunal is or may be in any way erroneous in point of law. Leave to appeal is accordingly refused.

(Signed): R R Chambers

CHIEF COMMISSIONER