[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 C13/95(IS) (2 October 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1995/C13_95(IS).html Cite as: [1995] NISSCSC C13/95(IS)

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

[1995] NISSCSC C13/95(IS) (2 October 1996)

 


Decision No: C13/95(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 claimant for leave to appeal and appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from the decision of the Londonderry Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 14 October 1994 DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an application for leave to appeal by the claimant against the decision of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal which upheld the decision of an Adjudication Officer that claimant was not entitled to have costs of interest payments due on his loan of £10,000 taken into consideration in his income support assessment.
2. I held an oral hearing at which claimant appeared but was not represented. The Adjudication Officer was represented by Mrs McRory and at the hearing both sides consented to me treating the application as the appeal. For the reasons set out below I allow the appeal.
3. The facts are that the claimant was off ill from his work and was obliged to claim income support from 10 June 1994 until 22 August 1994 . The point at issue is whether or not the interest on a home improvement loan of £10,000 from the Nationwide Anglia Building Society received by the claimant for the purpose of building a two-storey extension consisting of a domestic garage and first-floor bedroom entitled him to have the interest payable on that loan for the short period he was on income support allowed in respect same.
4. The law is to be found in Income Support (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987 and the relevant portion of which states:-

8.-(1) .... there shall be met under this paragraph an amount

in respect of interest payable on a loan which is taken out, with

or without security, for the purpose of -

(a) carrying out repairs or improvements to the dwelling occupied

as the home ...."

and went on to explain that, ""repairs and improvements" means major repairs necessary to maintain the fabric of the dwelling occupied as the home and any of the following measures undertaken with a view to improving its fitness for occupation." The only relevant measure would be "(k) other improvements which are reasonable in the circumstances".

5. The circumstances were that the claimant's mother-in-law had sold her home and was moving in with the claimant who lived in a semi-detached house with his wife, his 3 girls and one son, it was necessary to build on another bedroom to accommodate his mother-in-law. It was absolutely essential that she have a bedroom on her own because she was incontinent and also she was a very heavy smoker. So to accommodate her a bedroom had to be added on to the house. In order that the bedroom would be on the same level as the others then a downstairs garage was also included.
6. After the Adjudication Officer decided that the work was not considered "to be essential home improvements or major repairs", and in his submission said that:-

"If an extra bedroom was required for Mr B…'s mother-in-law,

under the circumstances, I submit that it would have been reasonable to

have expected her to have contributed to the cost of building the

bedroom as she had sold her own home prior to having moved in with

Mr B…'s family. It is not therefore reasonable in the

circumstances to allow an amount in respect of interest payments

due on the loan under paragraph 8(3)(k) of Schedule 3 to the

General Regulations."

7. The Social Security Appeal Tribunal which upheld that decision gave reasons as:-

"Having considered all the evidence including the claimant's evidence

to us today we do not feel that the improvements carried out were

necessary to improve the fitness for occupation of the claimant's

home. We do not feel that the criteria in regulation 8 of the

Income Support (General) Regulations are satisfied in relation to

construction of the garage and a bedroom."

8. When claimant sought leave to appeal against that decision the Adjudication Officer wrote as follows:

"I respectfully submit that the Tribunal erred in law in failing to

make adequate findings of fact and give adequate reasons for their

decision, in accordance with regulation 25(2) of The Social Security

(Adjudication) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987.

As the Tribunal were examining whether some or all of the loan in

question fell within paragraph 8(3) of Schedule 3 to The Income

Support (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987 which

contains 11 sub-paragraphs, more detailed findings of fact and

reasons for the decision were necessary. As a result of the

Tribunal failing in this respect the claimant is left not knowing

why his appeal was disallowed.

I consent to the Commissioner treating the application as an appeal

and determining any question arising on the application as if it

arose on appeal."

9. At the hearing before me Mrs McRory on behalf of the Adjudication Officer conceded that the Tribunal erred in law and that it would have been reasonable in the circumstances to add on a bedroom to accommodate Mr B…'s mother-in-law. However she questioned whether or not the garage could be included in "other improvements which were reasonable in the circumstances", although for the bedroom to be on the same level as the other bedrooms it was necessary to have something underneath it.
10. I accept the Adjudication Officer's concession that the Tribunal erred in law as stated. I have considered the Adjudication Officer's decision and I am surprised that such a narrow construction of reasonable was used. In this case the claimant, when he carried out the improvements was in a position to finance the loan because he was working and the reasonableness of what was done must be looked at in the light of those circumstances and for the Adjudication Officer to say that it would have been reasonable to have expected the mother-in-law to contribute to the cost of the building was completely and utterly irrelevant and not in any way covered by the Regulations. In his decision I do not know what he meant by "it is not reasonable in the circumstances to allow the interest". Clearly when the work was done it was evidently reasonable. Also the Tribunal decided that the improvements carried out were not necessary to improve the fitness for occupation of the claimant's home. I would refer to the decision of a Great Britain Commissioner in 8/95 in which the Commissioner said in referring to the phrase relating to the "fitness for occupation":-

"There is nothing to suggest that those words should be construed

narrowly so that only improvements likely to stop the dwelling

from being unfit for human habitation are covered. Indeed there

seems to me to be strong contrary indications, suggesting that

the words should be construed very broadly and that a tribunal

should be very slow to hold that any building work other than a

simple repair does not improve the dwelling's fitness for occupation."

I am satisfied that those words must be given a broad meaning. I therefore allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal. Clearly the work carried out improved the fitness of the house for occupation and the Tribunal erred in that regard.

11. I have been urged by both parties to give the decision which the Tribunal should have given and after discussion it was conceded by the Adjudication Officer that a proper proportion in respect of the bedroom would be to allow the interest on £9,000 but not to allow the sum of £1,000 in respect of the garage. I am prepared to accept this compromise and concession by the Adjudication Officer, but that does not mean that in other circumstances, and in fact in many cases the building of a garage could be included and be an allowable expense.
12. The decision therefore is that the claimant is entitled to have the cost of the interest payments due on the portion of the loan amounting to £9,000 to be taken into account in respect of his income support.

(Signed): C.C.G. McNally

COMMISSIONER

2 October 1996