[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 >> [1997] NISSCSC C2/97(IS) (26 March 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1997/C2_97(IS).html Cite as: [1997] NISSCSC C2/97(IS)

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

[1997] NISSCSC C2/97(IS) (26 March 1998)

 


Decision No: C2/97(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 the Downpatrick Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 15 November 1996 DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an appeal by the claimant against the decision of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal which held that certain building work carried out by the claimant to his home was not "repair and improvement" to the property concerned. This meant that under the Income Support (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987, the loan did not qualify for relief in respect of the interest paid on the loan.
2. Briefly the circumstances are that claimant originally had a mortgage with the ( & ( Building Society. A re-mortgage for a lower amount and an additional loan for home improvements were also taken out with the ( Bank. The home improvement loan was to be used to add an additional bedroom to the house and to extend the kitchen. The evidence was that because of the nature of the extension, it was as cheap (if not cheaper) to also extend the bathroom which was between the new bedroom and the kitchen, thereby avoiding two hipped roofs.
3. There was discussion at the Tribunal as to whether or not the Tribunal had properly considered the loans. It is now accepted by the Adjudication Officer that the original loan is a qualifying loan under the Regulations. The Adjudication Officer also accepted that the claimant had 5 daughters and one son, and that prior to the additional bedroom being added the 4 daughters slept in one room, with the fifth daughter sleeping in the same room as her brother. It was accepted that the bedroom therefore is properly allowable under regulation 16(2).
4. I arranged an oral hearing of the appeal at which claimant was represented by Mr McVeigh and the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mrs McRory. Mrs McRory argued that under regulation 16(1) of the Income Support (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987, a qualifying loan was one which was taken out for the purpose of "carrying out repairs and improvements to the dwelling occupied as the home". Regulation 16(2) defines "repairs and improvements". It lists certain measures that can be undertaken with a view to maintaining the fitness of the dwelling for human habitation and these include -

"(a) provision of a fixed bath, shower, wash basin, sink or lavatory,

and necessary associated plumbing, including the provision of

hot water not connected to a central heating system;

.....

(f) provision of facilities for preparing and cooking food;

.....

(l) provision of separate sleeping accommodation for children of

different sexes aged 10 or over who are part of the same family

as the claimant."

She accepted that the provision of the bedroom complied with 16(2)(l). She also accepted that the Tribunal erred in finding that the wording of the Regulations referred to "provision of facilities" and that that did not cover replacement. Therefore any replacement did not fall under repairs and improvements as defined and accepted that the Tribunal erred in this regard. Regulation 16 of Schedule 3 would allow for facilities to be replaced where they were needed to maintain the fitness of a dwelling for human habitation. She argued that it was difficult to see how the extension of the bathroom and kitchen would fall within regulation 16(2)(a) and (f), as those sub-paragraphs related to facilities within those rooms rather than the size. Mrs McRory stated that even if the kitchen was allowable she did not see how the bathroom costs could be apportioned.

5. Mr McVeigh argued that as far as the bathroom was concerned it was extended at no extra cost. If it had not been extended, then two hip roofs would have cost more than the job actually cost. He said that the whole job cost £17,500 and that the loan which was in question was for £12,000.
6. I adjourned the hearing to enable the claimant to furnish me with some costings from the Architect who drew the plans. Unfortunately the job was completed over 11 years ago and at the time the Architect was approaching retirement. Neither he nor the building contractor could be traced so it was impossible to obtain details of how the loan was apportioned to the work carried out. Mr McVeigh was able to confirm that the bathroom was extended at no extra cost.
7. While there is a scarcity of concrete information relating to the actual cost and the break-up of the costs then the only way in which the matter can be dealt with is on a "rough and ready" basis.
8. I accept that the Tribunal erred in law in two regards. Firstly, it held that the bedroom extension did not qualify for a loan. The Tribunal made findings of fact which did not accord with the evidence. It found that the new bedroom did not provide separate sleeping accommodation for children of different sexes, when in fact it did. This was clear on the evidence and is now accepted by the Adjudication Officer. Secondly, I am satisfied that the Tribunal erred in thinking that the word "provision" did not include replacements. For that reason I allow the appeal and set aside the decision.
9. I think this is a proper case in which I should give the decision that the Tribunal should have given, and I think that it can only be done so on a "rough and ready" basis. The Adjudication Officer now accepts that the bedroom is a qualifying expense. I am satisfied that the bathroom did not increase the cost of the work. The evidence is that the work cost £17,500 and the loan we are talking about is £12,000. Using my best endeavours in an attempt to find a solution, in the absence of concrete evidence, I think an equitable apportionment would be proper in this case.
10. The whole job cost £17,500. If one then looks at the kitchen and the bedroom as two separate units with the bathroom merely an add-on which was necessary to avoid two hip roofs, then one can apportion £8,750 to the bedroom and £8,750 to the kitchen. I am not satisfied that the kitchen complies with the Regulations. I accept the argument that if the kitchen does not qualify, then neither does the bathroom. One must remember this work was done long before there was any suggestion of housing costs. In accepting that the bathroom did not incur any additional expense, I am satisfied that proper apportionment would be to allow the interest on £8,750 of the £12,000 loan which was received for the house improvement.

(Signed): C C G McNally

COMMISSIONER

26 March 1998