[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Arnott v Melton Borough Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1800 (22 November 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1800.html Cite as: [2003] RVR 166, [2002] EWCA Civ 1800

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONERS

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2 Friday, 22 November 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN: This is an application for permission to appeal from the decision of the Social Security Commissioner, Christine Fellner, on 24 June 2002 dismissing the applicant's appeal from the decision of the Leicester appeal tribunal on 19 December 2001, which itself had refused the applicant's appeal against the respondent borough council's rejection on 5 March 2001 of his renewed claim for council tax benefit ("CTB") for the year commencing November 2000.
2. The application is, I fear, quite hopeless and I propose to deal with it relatively shortly. The applicant's claim for CTB was rejected because he had failed to comply with the respondent's requirement that he furnish the council with two forms of personal identity in support. Regulation 63 of the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/1814) provides:

"A person who makes a claim shall furnish such certificates, documents, information and evidence in connection with the claim, or any question arising out of it, as may be reasonably required by the appropriate authority in order to determine that person's entitlement to council tax benefit".

The applicant's appeals were dismissed because both the appeal tribunal and the social security commissioner in turn decided that the furnishing of such documents was "reasonably required" by the respondent authority within the meaning of regulation 63.

3. It is unnecessary to relate the facts in detail. True it is that the applicant's renewal claim for CTB for the previous year, 1999, had been accepted merely on the basis of his production in February 2000 of an unpaid utility bill for the last quarter of 1999. During the year 2000, however, the council stepped up its requirements and became more insistent on their being strictly adhered to. Let me read from the council's letter to the applicant dated 4 December 2000:

"I refer to the letters sent to you on 7 November 2000 and 21 November 2000 requesting evidence in support of your claim for council tax benefit and to your subsequent telephone calls.

Firstly, I must reiterate the requirement for you to provide two forms of identification in support of your claim. I am aware that you have been sent various information leaflets detailing what is acceptable as proof of personal identity and it is now up to you to decide whether you wish to provide these and enable your claim to be processed, or to allow your claim to be deemed to have been withdrawn and not put into payment.

During your telephone call of 30 November 2000 you queried the legislative background to the Verification Framework. The Verification Framework forms a platform for secure and accurate administration by defining the minimum standards for collecting evidence when a claim is made to council Tax Benefit. It has been commended by the National Audit Office and Audit Commission, and both the Public Accounts Committee and Social Security Select Committee have approved its implementation."

The letter then sets out regulation 63 of the 1992 regulations, explains the development of the verification framework and continues:

"The following quote is taken verbatim from chapter 6 of the Verification Framework guidance manual, paragraphs 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4:

6.2 'Identity checks are essential in every Council Tax Benefit claim.'

6.3 'The documentary evidence to help confirm identity is listed below. AT LEAST TWO items of evidence MUST be obtained. Only ORIGINAL documents can be accepted.'"

Paragraph 6.4 sets out a number of types of document which would satisfy the requirements of the authority, including bank statements, benefit payment books, birth certificates, driving licenses, marriage certificates, national insurance number cards and "utility bill paid in person's name for the last quarter". Then the letter ends:

"I hope you find this information of use. As I suggested to you during your telephone call of 30 November 2000 I would recommend you take objective advice from an independent third party, such as the Citizens Advice Bureau or Leicestershire County Council welfare Rights if you wish to challenge either the requirements or the legal validity of the Verification Framework, or the Council's application of it.

Finally, I would confirm that I will be happy to process your claim for Council Tax Benefit upon receipt of the documents required, ie two forms of personal identity, and must reiterate that your claim will not be processed without this information.

Please contact me if I can be of any further assistance."

4. Despite that letter (and, of course, the earlier letters and telephone calls to which it made reference), the applicant, having by then provided no more than a further unpaid utility bill, chose to submit in addition only an award letter from the DSS containing his national insurance number; nothing else. It was for that reason that the claim was rejected, although it should be added that when, at a later date, namely 17 August 2001, the applicant finally produced his driving licence, his claim was duly processed, albeit not then backdated.
5. Let me now turn to the commissioner's determination which it is sought to appeal. This set out the position in some detail. I need, however, quote from it only the following three paragraphs:

"13. It was, in my view as in that of the second tribunal chairman, reasonable for the council to require more stringent proof of identity, and the Verification Framework is an elaborate document, approved by the Social Security Advisory Committee among others, setting out means of preventing fraud. No-one is suggesting that the appellant himself was fraudulent; but the new requirements were applied to all claimants, whether on new or renewal claims. All that happened was that enhanced requirements for proving identity were added in practice to the regulation 63 requirements for 'certificates, documents, information and evidence'. If the council's requirements were reasonable, it follows that the appellant's refusal to comply with them was not reasonable. There was no need for the second tribunal to spell this out.

14. I have considered whether there was anything wrong with the council imposing the requirements across the board without having regard to the individual circumstances of each claimant, but have concluded that in this instance there was not. They were imposed pursuant to an initiative, formulated after extensive consultation, to deter and prevent fraud. The production of specified documents, of which quite a wide, but not exclusive, selection was included in leaflets, is not an onerous task, and regulation 63 contains a 4-week 'window' for their production, which can be extended if the council sees fit, no doubt to accommodate any difficulties there may be.

.... .... ....

16. I can understand to some extent the appellant's impatience with what he regarded as needless bureaucracy. But he has not argued that it would have been impossible or unduly burdensome for him to comply with the requirements. Even if he had supposed that, the council having accepted the unpaid bill in February, it should also accept the next one, once matters had been explained to him there was no reason for him not to comply."

6. In his grounds of appeal the applicant simply reasserts the points with which that determination dealt. He suggests in essence that it was unnecessary and unreasonable for the council to impose upon him, a claimant whose claim had been met in earlier years, the sort of requirements that might be expected to process a new claim. There is nothing in these points. They were all properly dealt with by the commissioner below. The applicant's obstinacy has, I fear, cost him part of his benefit, but he has only himself to blame.
7. As I sought to explain to him in the course of this morning's short hearing, it would in fact be a positive disservice to grant him the permission he seeks today. That would merely lead to an appeal at which the respondent council would be represented. The appeal would inevitably fail and the applicant just as inevitably would be required to pay from his exiguous means the substantial legal costs which would be incurred by the council in defeating it.
8. That, however, is by the way. There is no prospect of a successful appeal in this case and the application is accordingly refused.
ORDER: Application refused