Decision No: C13/93(AA)

	SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

	SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS
	(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

	SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS)
	(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

	ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE

	Application by the above-named claimant for leave to appeal and
	appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law
	from the determination on review by the Attendance Allowance Board
	for Northern Ireland given on 22 January 1992
	
	DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1.	This is an application brought by the mother on behalf of her child for leave to appeal  against the decision on review of an Attendance Allowance Board.  At the hearing before me claimant was represented by Ms Mary Johnston, Solicitor of the Belfast Law Centre and the Department was represented by Mr Philip Gunn, Solicitor of the Department of Health & Social Services.  I granted leave to appeal and with the consent of both parties treated the application as an appeal.

2.	Briefly the facts are that the child, who was born in May 1989, suffers from supraventricular tachycardia, and attendance allowance at the higher rate was granted for one year from 9 April 1990.  When a renewed claim was made in February 1991 the child was examined by a Medical Officer on behalf of the Department and as a result a decision would appear to have been made on 21 August 1991 withdrawing the benefit completely.  A review of that decision was sought and carried out by the Board in January 1992 a decision was made by the Chairman of the Board not to revise the decision to refuse the benefit on the grounds that the child was older.  No notification was sent to the claimant in respect of that decision and it was only in June 1992 that what purported to be written reasons for refusing the benefit were given. However a page containing paragraphs 4 to 9 was missing from the reasoned decision.  The case was further complicated by the fact that after the Board ceased to exist in April 1992 the Adjudication Officer purported to give a decision on the claim but that decision was appealed against and the Disability Appeal Tribunal set aside the decision of the Adjudication Officer for lack of jurisdiction.

3.	At the hearing before me Mr Gunn accepted that the matter made sorry reading and in view of the fact that there was a slight improvement in the child and that a disability living allowance at the middle rate had been awarded from 6 November 1992.  Mr Gunn conceded that the appeal should be allowed and the decision of the Attendance Allowance should be set aside. 

4.	Both parties agreed that I should exercise the powers vested in me to make the decision which the Board should have made and Mr Gunn further conceded that it would be proper on the evidence to award the allowance at the lower rate in respect of day-time continual supervision which is required from another person in order to avoid substantial danger to the child, being supervision substantially in excess of that normally required by a child of the same age and sex from 7 June 1991 to 5 November 1992.  Mrs Johnston supported this proposal.  I accept Mr Gunn's concessions as I consider they are a satisfactory solution to a situation that should never have been allowed to develop.

5.	Consequently for the reasons set out above I allow the appeal and award attendance allowance as indicated above.

	(Signed):  C C G McNally
							
	COMMISSIONER

	1 July 1993