[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 >> [1998] NISSCSC C38/98(IB) (22 June 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1998/C38_98(IB).html Cite as: [1998] NISSCSC C38/98(IB)

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

[1998] NISSCSC C38/98(IB) (22 June 1998)

 


Decision No: C38/98(IB)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS)

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

INCAPACITY BENEFIT

Application by the claimant for leave to appeal

and appeal to the Social Security Commissioner

on a question of law from the decision of the

Belfast Social Security Appeal Tribunal

dated 29 October 1996

DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision dated 29 October 1996 of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") sitting at Belfast. The Tribunal had been given leave by a Commissioner to make the application late. The Tribunal decision had dismissed the claimant's appeal against an Adjudication Officer's decision disallowing Incapacity Benefit.
2. I held an oral hearing of the application at which Mrs H... attended and at which she was represented by Mr H… of the Citizens Advice Bureau. Mr McAvoy of Central Adjudication Services attended and represented the Adjudication Officer. At the hearing, leave having been granted, both parties consented to my treating the application as an appeal and determining all questions as though they arose on appeal.
3. The decision of the Tribunal is in error of law and is set aside. The matter is remitted to a differently constituted Social Security Appeal Tribunal for rehearing.
4. Mr H... stated that he wished to appeal on the grounds that the findings of fact were inadequate to found the decision given. He also adopted Mr McAvoy's letter of 18 December 1997 as part of his grounds of appeal. That letter related to the inadequacy of the findings of fact and reasons.
5. The letter of 18 December 1997 mentioned the difficulty which Mr H..., Mr McAvoy and indeed I myself encountered in connection with this case. The record of proceedings was not before us. It appeared that the Independent Tribunal Service file in this matter could not be traced and the claimant had no such record. Mr H... stated that his instructions were that at hearing the appellant and her representative did comment at some length on the physical and mental descriptors involved in the All Work Test. He said the findings did not reflect this nor did the reasons. Even if the case was just on mental descriptors he would not consider the findings or reasons to be adequate.
6. Mr McAvoy referring again to his letter of 18 December 1997 said that in his view the findings and reasons were inadequate by any standard.
7. I am in agreement with both Mr H... and Mr McAvoy as regards the reasons for the decision being inadequate. I am not of the view that the findings are inadequate as the document which has become known as the score sheet on the All Work Test can be considered as a finding of fact. The inadequacy of the reasons is apparent even from a reading of such papers as I do have before me. These include the IB45 form of the doctor's report, the letter of appeal and the full findings and reasons as recorded by the Chairman. The letter of appeal to the Tribunal referred to wishing to appeal on the physical and mental descriptors. The said doctor's report referred to the points which the claimant had scored herself on the physical descriptors and indicated that the claimant was claiming Incapacity Benefit due to back problems and migraine.
8. I consider the reasons in no way explained to Ms H... why she had lost her appeal or why the Tribunal had scored her as they did on the All Work Test. The Tribunal has given no evidential assessment. It has merely set out its scoring on the All Work Test. I am not of the view that it is necessary in every case for a Tribunal to explain the reasons for its scoring separately on each descriptor. However, where there is a conflict of evidence, as here, some general indication of the evidence preferred and the reasons for that preference is necessary. In the absence of that claimant could not understand why she had lost her appeal.
9. I do not consider that this is a case where it would be appropriate for me to make findings of fact and I therefore, as stated above, remit the matter to a differently constituted Tribunal for rehearing.

(Signed): Moya F Brown

COMMISSIONER

22 June 1998