CIS/091/1994
The Office of Social Security and Child Support Commissioners
 
SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ACT 1992 
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL TRIBUNAL ON A QUESTION OF LAW 
DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER 
Social Security Appeal Tribunal: Sheffield
[ORAL HEARING]

1. This is a claimant's appeal, brought by leave of the chairman of the social security appeal tribunal, against a decision of that tribunal dated 12 November 1993 which confirmed a decision issued by the adjudication officer on 28 June 1993. My own decision is that the aforesaid decision of the appeal tribunal is not erroneous in point of law.

2. This case concerns full-time students and the relationship between their mandatory awards and their entitlement to income support. On 15 July 1994 I signed the long and complex decision on Commissioner's file CIS/033/94 which dealt with an aspect of that relationship which had recently come before a number of appeal tribunals in various parts of the country. The case now before me raises a different aspect of that relationship. It is an aspect which I myself have not seen raised before. Fortunately, however, the essential issue of law is one which can be dealt with very much more shortly than could the issue which was before me in CIS/033/94. It is not, however, wholly without interest; and the wording of the relevant legislation is not, perhaps, as straightforward as might be wished. It appears that at the appeal tribunal hearing all parties were agreed that "it would be prudent to seek clarification from higher authority". Accordingly, I myself directed that there be an oral hearing of the appeal to the Commissioner. 

3. I held that hearing on 6 December 1994. The central facts are brief and in no way in dispute. The claimant has enjoyed the assistance of an able representative, Mr J Clements, of the Benefits Advice Shop of                     . I indicated in my direction that the attendance before me of the claimant herself would be in no way necessary. She did not attend. But Mr Clements did attend. The adjudication officer was represented by Ms N Yerrell, of the Office of the Solicitor to the Departments of Health and Social Security. We were able in the course of the hearing to explore a number of avenues, some of more peripheral bearing than others. I am indebted to both Mr Clements and Ms Yerrell for their respective contributions.

4. The claimant was born in 1959. Living with her is her daughter,           , who was 
born in December 1979. In respect of           , the claimant receives child benefit and one parent benefit. At the material time she was also receiving £100 a month by way of maintenance for           . In the Autumn of 1992 the claimant embarked on a full-time course of advanced education at               University. It was a three years course, directed towards a EB in Professional Studies, Youth and Community Work. The Education Department of the City of Sheffield made to her, in respect of the first year of that course and pursuant to the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1992, an award totalling £5090.70. That total was made up as follows: 
Maintenance Grant £2265.00
Additional Days/Weeks over 303/7 weeks 155.70
Dependants grant 1690.00
For Students over 26 years of age 980.00
£5090.70

5. The last term of the first year of the course ended on 18 June 1993. On 11 June 1993 the claimant signed a claim for income support in respect of the long vacation. Chapter VIII of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 is devoted to students. Regulation 62 is entitled "Calculation of Grant Income". (For ease of reference, I have set out the whole of regulation 62 in the Annexure to this decision.) The adjudication officer applied regulation 62 and concluded that the grant income to be taken into account from 18 June 1993 was £51.34 a week. When the equation between applicable amounts and total relevant income was worked out, the result was that for the long vacation the claimant was entitled to income support at £3.91 a week. 

6. The sum of £51.34 a week as grant income was worked out as follows: 
(a) The maintenance grant of £2265.00 and the additional weeks element of £155.70 were totally disregarded. Those sums fell to be attributed to and apportioned over "the period of study" ; and there is no question but that the relevant period of study ended on 18 June 1993. 
(b) There is also no doubt but that the dependants grant of £1690.00 and the older student's award of £980.00 fell to be attributed to and apportioned equally over the period of 52 weeks in respect of which it was payable, ie the period of 12 months which began on 1 September 1992. 
(c) £1690.00 plus £980.00 equals £2670.00; and that when divided by 52 yields £51.34. 

7. The sole complaint which the claimant makes about the calculations which I have set out in my preceding paragraph centres upon paragraph (2)(g) of regulation 62 of the General Regulations. As can be seen from the Annexure hereto, there falls to "be disregarded from the amount of a student's grant income any payment ..... intended to meet the cost of books and equipment (other than special equipment) or if not so intended an amount equal to £267 towards such costs". In the case now before me, no specific sum was "so intended".It is common ground that the disregard should be £267. But from what sum is that to be disregarded? The local adjudication officer treated the £267 as falling to be disregarded from the £2420.70 which represented the sum of the basic maintenance grant (£2265.00) and the additional weeks allowance (£155.70). That element of the claimant's grant income, of course, had no bearing upon her income in the long vacation. Mr Clements, on the other hand, contends that the £267 disregard should be apportioned equally over the whole 52 weeks of the relevant academic year. That disregard would, of course, reduce the claimant's long vacation grant income by about £5 a week; and her income support entitlement would be increased by the same sum.

8. Paragraph (1) of regulation 62 provides thus: 
"(1) The amount of a student's grant income to be taken into account shall, subject to paragraphs (2) and (2A), be the whole of his grant income." 
The words which I have underlined stand in the forefront of Mr Clements' submission. We are - he contends - in the context of "the whole" of the claimant's grant income. It is the whole of that income that is "subject to paragraphs (2) and (2A)". It is from that whole of the grant income, accordingly, that there falls to be disregarded the sum of £267 in respect of the cost of books and equipment. That submission of Mr Clements is not wholly without attraction. But I am satisfied that it will not stand up to rigorous analysis. In the first place, if regulation 62(1) really meant what Mr Clements suggests that it means, this claimant would find attributed to and apportioned over the weeks of the long vacation the £2265.00 basic maintenance grant and the £155.70 additional weeks award. That would certainly not be to her liking. More important: it would not be in accordance with the legislation. I am quite satisfied that when regulation 62(1) says that the whole of the grant income is to be "taken into account", it means neither more nor less than "taken into account in accordance with the further provisions in regulation 62". I pursue that. 

9. Paragraphs (3) and (3A) of regulation 62 make clear the respective periods to which are to be attributed and over which are to be apportioned the various components of a grant award. If the system is to be operable, those components cannot be allowed to overflow from their proper period into any other period. There is not in my mind any doubt at all but that provision for the cost of books and equipment is made in the basic maintenance grant and nowhere else. In the grounds of appeal prepared by Mr Clements was written this: 
"On the question of general reasonableness, the argument put forward by the adjudication officer that the sum for expenses is included in the standard grant but not in the other elements, I can find no evidence, and none was put forward."
But if the sum for books is not included in the basic maintenance grant, where else is it included? For many students - the majority, I should expect - the basic maintenance grant (with additional weeks if appropriate) represents the totality of their award. Manifestly it is from that element that they are expected to buy their books. I cannot see how that situation alters if the relevant student has a dependants grant or an older students element. It would be something of a contradiction in terms to have a dependants grant which included a sum for the student's books. Is a student with dependants really expected to buy his or her books out of the money paid to him or her for the maintenance of a dependant? Is it really expected that an older student will spend more upon books than will a student of less mature years? A student who is in receipt of only the maintenance grant would - I fancy - be affronted to be told that, for income support purposes, only 30/52 of £267 was to be disregarded from his grant income. It would be both illogical and unreasonable to apply the disregard in that manner. 

10. The issue can be looked at from another angle - but the same conclusion emerges. The local adjudication officer was concerned solely with the claimant's grant income in the long vacation. That income consisted of her dependants grant and her older student's award. Regulation 62(2)(g) cannot - upon any permissible construction - be read as allowing the cost of books and equipment to be set off by way of reduction of such grant income. 

11. Mr Clements urged that a student may purchase books in the vacation as well as in term. That may indeed be so. I cannot think, however, that that consideration can affect the true construction of the legislative provisions. The scheme obviously contemplates that a student (whether with or without dependants) must purchase his whole year's books out of his basic maintenance grant. 

12. I am satisfied that the appeal tribunal reached the correct conclusion. Accordingly, the claimant's appeal is disallowed.

(Signed) J Mitchell
Commissioner

(Date) 21 December 1994