Application No: A7/95(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 above-named claimant for
leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner
on a question of law from the decision of the
Limavady Social Security Appeal Tribunal
dated 14 January 1992

DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1.	This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal which held she was not entitled to severe disability premium from 1 July 1989.  She sought leave to appeal on the grounds that she had heard a radio programme which referred to Bates case and considered that that may well have had some effect on the Tribunal's decision.

2.	The facts are that the claimant is now an 86 year old widow who lives with her son R… and she is the tenant of her home.   She is in receipt of retirement pension and attendance allowance and her son is in receipt of an invalid care allowance in respect of caring for her and has been receiving same since January 1990.   She was awarded an attendance allowance from 5 February 1990.  She appealed on the grounds that she considered she was entitled to severe disability premium.

3.	I arranged an oral hearing at which claimant did not appear but the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr McLaughlin.

4.	The Social Security Appeal Tribunal held that severe disability premium was not payable prior to 1 January 1990 because the attendance allowance was not in payment at that time.  That in fact is in accordance with the regulations and it is unfortunate that the matter was not explained to the claimant.  It is also unfortunate that the matter was complicated by references to joint occupancy and as to whether or not claimant and her son jointly occupied the premises.  In fact the Regulations are very clear that she cannot get the severe disability premium until the attendance allowance is payable and that applied to the premium before 1 January 1990.

5.	The Bates case relates to joint occupancy which is irrelevant to the claimant's case and I think that a lot of time and money could have been saved between 1991 and now if someone had taken the trouble to explain the situation to the claimant even by letter when her application for review was refused or when her original application was refused.  I think one of the problems in many of these cases which waste considerable time and a lot of money in applications for appeals and in appeals before Tribunals arise because not sufficient communication exists between a claimant and the Adjudication Officer or the Social Security Agency.  I understand that in many cases a claimant is merely informed that he is not entitled to a benefit and that if he wishes any explanation as to why he has to ask the Agency for an explanation.  I suggest that if those whose responsibility it is to inform claimants initially of the result of their claim were to spend a little more time and effort in explaining to a claimant why a particular claim is rejected then that may well save a considerable amount of time and money overall.

6.	Clearly the Tribunal was correct in applying the law and the application for leave to appeal is refused.

(Signed):  C.C.G. McNally 

COMMISSIONER

27 June 1995