Application No:  A5/99-00(II)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1998

DISABLEMENT BENEFIT

Application by the above-named claimant for
leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner
on a question of law from a Tribunal's decision
dated 9 April 1999

	DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1.	This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against a decision dated 9th April 1999 of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") sitting at Belfast.  That Tribunal had disallowed the claimant's appeal against the decision of an Adjudication Officer.  It had decided that the claimant was not entitled to Disablement Pension from 8th May 1992 to 6th October 1997 (both dates inclusive) because his claim for that period made on 7th January 1999 was not made within the time limit for claiming.

2.	The claimant's appeal to the Tribunal was by letter from his solicitors Messrs … dated 3rd March 1999 and was in very general terms.  The only grounds that were given were:-

"We believe that the figures and dates contained in your above named letter [a letter from the Adjudication Officer dated 15th January 1999 advising of the decision] are erroneous at law."

When the Tribunal came to deal with the matter it had no request for a hearing and consequently dealt with the matter on paper.  In its reasons for decision the Tribunal stated:-

"We have been unable to discover exactly what error in law his solicitor is alleging.  

		There is no dispute he claimed Disability Benefit on 7 January 1998, the date it was received in the Department, and that under Regulation 19(1) of Schedule 4 to the Claims and Payment Regulations this can be backdated for a maximum of three months and no further."

The claimant's grounds for appeal to me were again contained in correspondence from his solicitor and essentially were two fold as follows:-

	1.	That the claimant had made an earlier claim in 1992 and

	2.	That the claimant was not afforded a hearing at the Tribunal due to an 		administrative misunderstanding.  

3.	I held a hearing of the matter and the claimant amplified this second ground to me by stating that he had telephoned the Tribunal on being informed that his appeal would be determined on or after 7th April (no earlier request for a hearing having been received).  He had been told by the Tribunal office that he would have to put any request for a hearing in writing and that it would have to be received no later than 7th April. He informed me that his mother hand delivered a request to the Tribunal office.  His mother did not attend.  The Tribunal proceeded to hear and determine the matter by way of a "paper determination" on 8th March 1999.

4.	If I were to determine that the claimant's mother had hand delivered such a request and that it had reached the Tribunal clerk prior to the hearing the Tribunal decision could be set aside as in breach of the rules of natural justice.  However, I am unable to determine if any request was received in the office before the hearing and the claimant's mother has provided no evidence.  I am also not satisfied from the papers that it was received either by the Tribunal clerk or the Tribunal itself.  Had the matter been of import for the substance of the Tribunal's decision (ie the actual outcome) I may have considered it necessary to investigate the matter further.  I do not do so because I am satisfied that the decision which the Tribunal reached was the only decision it could have reached.

5.	The claimant's solicitor conceded that if it was dealing with the matter only on the claim made on 7th January 1998 the Tribunal had not erred in law.  The solicitor had originally argued that the former provisions on good cause in regulation 19 of the Claims and Payments Regulations meant that the Tribunal should have investigated good cause for late claiming.  In fact, as Mrs Gunning pointed out at the hearing, those provisions were altered with effect from 7th April 1997 to remove the good cause exception from the time limit for claiming benefit for industrial disablement.  This was the benefit the claimant was seeking.  The solicitor did not continue with his argument on this point.

6.	As I am satisfied that the Tribunal in dealing, as it did, only with the claim of 7th January 1998, did not err in law and as the decision which it reached on the basis of that claim was the only decision which it could have reached, I can find no arguable grounds for setting that decision aside.

7.	In the circumstances therefore I can see no possibility of error in the Tribunal 	decision and I dismiss the application for leave.

8.	I would, however, wish to make it clear that the claimant is not prevented from endeavouring to establish that he made an earlier claim for the relevant benefit. That is not a matter which was before me and it was not before the Tribunal.  If it can be established that such an earlier claim was made then a decision will have to be made upon that claim.  This present decision which relates solely to a claim on 7th January 1998 has no bearing on whether or not an earlier claim was made nor on the outcome thereof.  The claimant is quite free to endeavour to establish that such earlier claim was made.

9.	For the reasons above stated I consider that there is no arguable issue that the 	Tribunal's decision was in error of law and I dismiss the application.

	(Signed):  M F Brown

	COMMISSIONER

	6 May 2000