A12/93(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
Dungannon Social Security Appeal Tribunal
dated 20 July 1993

	DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1.	In this case the claimant seeks leave to appeal against the decision of Dungannon Social Security Appeal Tribunal, whereby it was decided that the claimant had misrepresented and failed to disclose the material fact that his wife had worked on 2nd and 4th February 1993, and that in consequence there had been an overpayment of income support which was recoverable.  

2.	Central to the Tribunal's decision was their rejection of the evidence of the claimant's wife, who had denied working as a taxi driver on the days in question.  I do not propose to review the evidence in detail; but I am satisfied that this rejection was amply justified.

3.	Leave to appeal to the Commissioner is now sought on the following grounds:-

		(a)	that if there was evidence to support the Tribunal's decision
			that the claimant's wife was working on the days in question,
			such evidence, which related only to a period of one hour in
			each day, was not sufficient to enable them to conclude that the
			work was material in that it exceeded 16 hours a week; and

		(b)	that the Tribunal had failed to take account of the evidence of
			the claimant's wife, which was said to have been corroborated
			by unchallenged independent evidence.

4.	Having considered this matter I have reached the conclusion that the grounds relied upon by the claimant are without substance.  Ground (a) might perhaps have had some merit if the claimant had acknowledged that his wife was working on the days in question and evidence had been offered of the number of hours involved.  That was the stage at which to make the case that the hours of work did not exceed 16 a week.  Instead, Mrs O’N... maintained that she had not done any work and when that evidence was rejected as untruthful the Tribunal were in my opinion fully entitled to draw adverse inferences in relation to other aspects of the case.  The Tribunal have explained why they were satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mrs O’N... was working as a self-employed taxi-driver for at least 16 hours on the two days specified and I do not consider that such a conclusion was unjustified.

5.	So far as ground (b) is concerned, I would simply say that I am satisfied that the Tribunal gave full and adequate consideration to the evidence tendered by the claimant's wife and the corroborating independent evidence.  The Tribunal accepted that Mrs O’N... attended the baby clinic on the morning of 2 February 1993; but I do not find it in the least surprising that they rejected her evidence regarding the time at which she left it.

6.	For the reasons given in paragraphs 4 and 5 above I reject the grounds relied upon by the claimant in support of his application for leave to appeal.

	I have also considered whether there are any other grounds for holding that the decision of the Appeal Tribunal is or may be erroneous in point of law and have reached the conclusion that there are not.  Leave to appeal will therefore be refused.

(Signed):  R. R Chambers

CHIEF COMMISSIONER