[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 A5/95(IS) (27 April 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1995/A5_95(IS).html Cite as: [1995] NISSCSC A5/95(IS)

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

[1995] NISSCSC A5/95(IS) (27 April 1995)

 


Application No: A5/95(IS)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 INCOME SUPPORT
Application by the above-named claimant for leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from the decision of the Londonderry Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 22 September 1994 DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal which upheld the decision of an Adjudication Officer that she was not entitled to severe disability premium in her income support benefit.
2. I arranged an oral hearing at which claimant attended with her daughter and the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr McLaughlin.
3. Basically the facts are that the claimant is now a 78 year old widow who resides with her daughter in an owner/occupied accommodation. They became joint owners of the property on 4 March 1990. Claimant was awarded income support in 1988. She claimed severe disability premium in March 1994 and sought arrears of the premium as she jointly owned the property with her daughter. Her claim was rejected by the Adjudication Officer on the grounds that she did not qualify because she was not joint owner with her daughter prior to 11 April 1988. The facts disclosed that she was in fact the tenant of the house up to March 1990 when it was purchased by herself and her daughter jointly.
4. At the hearing the claimant explained the situation to me, she felt very aggrieved, I think partially because no-one had ever taken the trouble to explain the regulations to her and the decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal while strictly correct, nevertheless did not assist her in understanding why she was refused. In fact I think it only added to her confusion because her representative is reported by the Tribunal as saying:-

"Accept difficulty - and had to be joint owner before April 1988.

Refer to (2c). If in house A and move to house B and became

joint owners immediately possible entitlement because once as

joint owners from start. She didn't do this. Anomaly in the law.

We accept she does not satisfy the requirements and no entitlement."

I think this was an unfortunate observation by her representative which lead her to think that if she had moved to a different house she would have been entitled to the benefit.

5. It is quite clear that the regulations are against her because she was not a joint owner or joint tenant before 1988. At the hearing before me Mr McLaughlin on behalf of the Adjudication Officer undertook to explain the position to the claimant.
6. The claimant felt aggrieved also because it was the local office which had suggested to her that she should make the application in the first place.
7. While I have every sympathy for the claimant, nevertheless I am satisfied that the Tribunal did not err in law and consequently leave to appeal is refused.

(Signed): C.C.G. McNally

COMMISSIONER

27 April 1995