[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions >> [1994] NISSCSC C1-94(IS) (6 May 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1994/C1-94(IS).html Cite as: [1994] NISSCSC C1-94(IS)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

[1994] NISSCSC C1-94(IS) (6 May 1994)

 


C1/94(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

Appeal to the Social Security Commissioner

on a question of law from the decision of

Limavady Social Security Appeal Tribunal

dated 28 October 1993

DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. In this case the claimant appeals against the decision of Limavady Social Security Appeal Tribunal; whereby it was decided that she was "entitled to housing costs in respect of mortgage payments from date of request." As I understand it, this has been interpreted as a decision to the effect that the claimant was entitled to the relevant housing costs from 21 October 1992; the date on which the review claim form was received from her.
2. I will not attempt to set out the complicated background facts of this case. For present purposes it is sufficient to state that the claimant is seeking the award of housing costs in respect of mortgage interest payments; to which she claims to have been entitled from 1986. The Adjudication Officer decided that she was not entitled to any such housing costs and her submission to the Appeal Tribunal did not deal with the question of the date from which entitlement would run if the appeal were allowed. In the event that was what happened. The appeal was allowed and, as stated in paragraph 1 above, the claimant was declared to be "entitled to housing costs in respect of mortgage payments from date of request."
3. The findings of fact material to the Tribunal's decision were recorded as follows:-

" Claimant's husband died November 1985.

House transferred into claimant's name July 1986.

House mortgaged also at this time.

Husband did some building work and at time he died he was carrying

out renovations to house. These had to be completed by claimant.

Claimant produced receipts to show the mortgage was taken out to

finish work.

It was incurred for improvements.

The husband did not leave debts to be paid. The mortgage was not

taken out for this reason. Due to Building Society pressure the

property was transferred to son B... who was then responsible

for a new mortgage. This was done to retain property for Mrs M...

to live in."

The reasons for the decision were:-

"The claimant proved that the mortgage was raised to carry out

what in fact were vitally important improvements. Her husband

died during course of repairs and quite clearly she had to

finish them and had no other choice. When claimant said that the

loan was to pay off debts she was clearly confused. The evidence

produced in form of receipts to carry out work as well as the grant

of probate showed this."

4. On receiving notification of the Appeal Tribunal's decision the claimant first sought to have it set aside on the grounds that it had been wrongly recorded. Through her daughter, Mrs B(, she maintained that her appeal had been allowed back to 1986, and when the Tribunal declined to set their decision aside she sought and was granted leave to appeal on what was effectively the same point. The actual grounds of appeal as set out in the notice are "that the Tribunal failed to record the decision adequately as there is a lot of dates in question is wrong. The period in question is 1986 not the period stated by the Tribunal Chairman."
5. In his written observations on the appeal the Adjudication Officer now concerned with the case concedes that the Tribunal erred in law in failing to make adequate findings of fact and inadequately recording the reasons for their decision. He identified three omissions:-

(i) The findings of fact material to the decision should have included a finding as to whether or not the claimant was responsible or treated as responsible for mortgage interest payments, for the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 3 to the Income Support (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987.

(ii) In their reasons for decision the Tribunal should have recorded the basis on which the claimant was entitled to housing costs; bearing in mind the evidence that the mortgage which she took out, and which was said to be obtained to carry out essential improvements to her home, was fully redeemed on 4 August 1988 when her son obtained a mortgage to purchase the property.

(iii) The Tribunal should have explained in their reasons for decision why they rejected the claimant's argument that she was entitled to housing costs from 1986.

6. I have considered this matter and agree that the Appeal Tribunal erred in law in this case in failing to comply adequately with the provisions of regulation 25(2)(b) of the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987. It is right to say that, as the case developed before the Appeal Tribunal, it became necessary to consider a number of points which had not been referred to in the Adjudication Officer's original submission. Having decided that the Appeal Tribunal should be allowed, the Tribunal should have gone on to record the findings of fact and reasons on which they based their decision that the claimant was entitled to housing costs in respect of mortgage payments from 21 October 1992. As matters stand it is impossible to tell why the claimant should have been awarded housing costs from that date, and there is no explanation of the effect, if any, of the substitution of one mortgage for another. I accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the decision of the Appeal Tribunal and refer the case for determination by another Tribunal.
7. As I have mentioned, there are a number of points to be considered in this case apart from the basic question as to whether or not the claimant is, in the circumstances, entitled to housing costs in respect of mortgage payments. If the new Tribunal decide that she is so entitled, it will be necessary for them to record the findings of fact and reasons on which that decision is based. They should also record the date of the commencement of such entitlement and explain how and why that date has been decided upon. On all of these matters the Tribunal should have the benefit of detailed submissions from the Adjudication Officer, who should have regard to the written observations in this appeal referred to in paragraph 5 above. Finally, so far as the claimant is concerned, she should bear in mind that there will be a complete rehearing of her appeal and that there can be no guarantee of a successful outcome.

(Signed): R. R. Chambers

CHIEF COMMISSIONER

6 May 1994