A6/95(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
to the Social Security Commissioner
on a question of law from the decision of
Newry Social Security Appeal Tribunal
dated 7 June 1994

DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1.	This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of Newry Social Security Appeal Tribunal, disallowing in part his appeal against the Adjudication Officer's decision that there had been an overpayment of income support for the period from 22 September 1992 to 25 January 1993, and that the amount of the overpayment was recoverable from the claimant because he had failed to disclose the material fact that he had been awarded a grant by the Southern Education and Library Board.

2.	It is in my view clear from the record of their proceedings that the Appeal Tribunal took care to investigate the issues in this case in considerable detail.  There is a lengthy note of the evidence, and both the findings of fact and reasons for decision are, if anything, more comprehensive than one usually finds in these cases.  The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal in respect of the period from 22 September 1992 to 5 November 1992 was based upon their finding that the claimant did not receive his grant cheque until 6 November 1992.  They found, however, that after that date the claimant had failed to disclose the material fact that he had been awarded a grant, and they accordingly disallowed the appeal in respect of the period from 6 November 1992 to 25 January 1993.

3.	The grounds of the claimant's application for leave to appeal to the Commissioner are set out in his letter of 10 December 1994.  Briefly they are as follows:-

(a)  That a reference by the Tribunal Chairman was based on hearsay
and inadmissible evidence, and that in consequence the Tribunal's
decision was arrived at unlawfully.

(b)  That the Tribunal's decision did not correspond with the 
attempts by the Department to arrive at a much larger sum.

(c)  That the Tribunal's statement of their reasons for decision
and findings of fact was inadequate.

(d)  That the Tribunal made a decision based on insufficient 
evidence.

4.	I will comment separately on the claimant's grounds as set out above.

So far as (a) is concerned I would firstly point out that Appeal Tribunals are not bound by the strict rules of evidence and hearsay evidence is admissible.  In any event, the Chairman's comment was concerned only with his view of the reason for the timing of the claimant's disclosure to the Department, and as such it was merely incidental to the Tribunal's decision on overpayment and recovery.

I am not sure that I fully understand what the claimant means by ground (b).  The Tribunal allowed the claimant's appeal in part and it was therefore inevitable that the amount of the overpayment which the Department was held to be entitled to recover from the claimant would differ from the amount originally specified by the Adjudication Officer.  I can see nothing to suggest that the Tribunal's decision on this aspect of the case was erroneous in law.

In paragraph 2 above I have already commented upon the care taken by the Tribunal to investigate the issues in this case and the comprehensive nature of their findings of fact and reasons for decision.  In my view the Tribunal have made it perfectly clear why they decided that the claimant's appeal should be allowed in relation to the period up to 5 November 1992, but disallowed in respect of the later period.  It could perhaps be said that some of the entries on form AT3, (the Record of the Tribunal's proceedings), appear under inappropriate headings.  For example, a number of the "findings of fact material to the decision" are more in the nature of comments or expressions of opinion.  Similarly, the section for "reasons for decision", contains material which might more appropriately have been included under the "findings of fact" heading.  However, the layout of the Tribunal's decision is of no consequence.  What matters is that it should contain the findings and reasons which form the basis of the Tribunal's decision and enable the parties to understand why that decision was reached.  In my opinion the Tribunal's decision in this instance fully achieves those objectives, and I am satisfied that there was ample evidence to support it.  I am therefore unable to accept grounds (c) and (d).

5.	For the reasons given in paragraph 4 above I am of the opinion that the grounds relied upon by the claimant are without substance.  I have also considered whether there is any other valid ground for holding that the decision of the Appeal Tribunal in this case is or may be erroneous in point of law and have reached the conclusion that there is not.  Leave to appeal will accordingly be refused.

(Signed):  R R Chambers

CHIEF COMMISSIONER