[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 >> [2002] NISSCSC C2/02-03(DLA) (8 July 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/2002/C2_02-03(DLA).html Cite as: [2002] NISSCSC C2/02-03(DLA), [2002] NISSCSC C2/2-3(DLA)

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

[2002] NISSCSC C2/02-03(DLA) (8 July 2002)

 


Decision No: C2/02-03(DLA)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY ORDER (NORTHERN IRELAND) 1992 DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE
Appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from the decision of Belfast Appeal Tribunal dated 21 May 2001 DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an appeal by the claimant against the decision of a Tribunal to the effect that she is not entitled to the care component or the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance from and including 13 March 2000. Leave to appeal was granted by a Commissioner on 29 April 2002.
2. The claimant made a claim on 13 March 2000 for Disability Living Allowance stating that she suffered from bowel incontinence, mobility problems and lack of energy. After the completion of a medical report by her General Practitioner, the claimant was examined by an Examining Medical Practitioner on 17 June 2000. After perusal of the available evidence, on 17 June 2000 it was decided that the claimant's claim should be disallowed from and including 13 March 2000. At the request of the claimant the decision was reconsidered on 9 August 2000. However it was not changed. Thereupon the claimant appealed to an Appeal Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal, in relation to both the care and mobility component gave the following reasons for its decision:

"Mrs (sic) R… 15.5.01 reports that all his tests have been normal. Dr B.. General Practitioner 11.1.01 says there is no definitive diagnosis but feels her symptoms are genuine although she has only recently become a patient. Mr R…'s report of 19.12.00 shows she has intact internal and external splinters, normal anal tone and reflex, intact curtaneous anal and buttock sensation, and symptoms which are not classical dumping syndrome and an absence of objective data. So that in fact everything really turns on Mrs O…'s credibility or in other words whether we believe she is as severely affected as she alleges. Having seen and heard from her and noted inconsistencies in her evidence, we do not believe her and do not accept her evidence either with regard to mobility or care. Her appeal is accordingly disallowed."

4. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal in relation to both components was that the claimant was not entitled to Disability Living Allowance from and including 13 March 2000.
5. Leave to appeal to a Commissioner was refused by the legally qualified member of the Tribunal on 7 November 2001. However, as stated in paragraph 1, leave to appeal was granted by a Commissioner on 29 April 2002.
6. Having considered the circumstances of the case I am satisfied that the appeal can properly be determined without a hearing. In this appeal the claimant is represented by Mr Barry McVeigh of the Northern Ireland Citizens Advice Bureau and the Department is represented by Mrs Gunning of the Decision Making and Appeals Unit.
7. The relevant submissions of Mr McVeigh are set out in a letter dated 12 February 2002 whilst the relevant submissions of Mrs Gunning are set out in a letter dated 13 December 2001. Suffice to say, Mrs Gunning does not support the claimant's appeal.
8. Mr McVeigh in this case contends that the Tribunal has failed to give adequate reasons for its decision in that it failed to provide a valid reason for disbelieving her evidence and, accordingly, the claimant cannot tell from the Tribunal's reasons why she did not succeed in her appeal. Mrs Gunning, on behalf of the Department, has submitted that the Tribunal explained the reasons for its decision adequately. She also submitted that, on reading the decision, it is clear why the Tribunal decided as it did and, accordingly, the decision is sustainable on the evidence.
9. A Tribunal does not have to justify its decision. As stated in C32/00-01(IB)(T) at paragraph 22:

"the Tribunal is not required to give the reasons for its reasons."

However, a Tribunal is required to explain its decision in appropriate circumstances. As stated at paragraph 23 of C32/00-01(IB)(T):

"The only rule is that the reasons for the decision must make the decision comprehensible to a reasonable person reading it. In many instances it would be pointless for a Tribunal to enter into a detailed explanation."

10. However, in the present case the Tribunal has stated that it has "noted inconsistencies in her evidence". There may be such inconsistencies in the claimant's case. Nonetheless the Tribunal has not stated what they are in its statement of reasons. Inconsistencies are not self evident from the papers before me. Examination of the record of proceedings does not make it clear what the inconsistencies actually are and the statement of reasons does not clarify the matter.
11. In the circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal having found that there were inconsistencies, ought to have given some indication what they were. In my view a fully detailed account and record is not necessary in the circumstances of the present case but the claimant, reading the decision, ought to be in the position to appreciate readily what the Tribunal is referring to. The Tribunal ought to have dealt with this issue explicitly.
12. The Tribunal in this case has made it clear that it disbelieved the claimant. As stated at paragraph 28 of C28/00-01(IB)(T):

"Where … a Tribunal clearly expresses its view that the claimant's evidence is completely unreliable, no further findings of fact maybe necessary. The finding that the claimant is a completely unreliable witness may be enough."

However as also stated at paragraph 28:

"In other cases it may not. It will all depend on the circumstances of the individual case."

13. The Tribunal in the present case is not merely stating that it does not believe the claimant's evidence. The Tribunal is making a more subtle point. One of the reasons for the Tribunal not accepting the claimant's case is that it is inherently inconsistent. In my view some sort of explanation for its finding of inconsistency is necessary in the circumstances.
14. Such a specific finding is not necessary in every case where a Tribunal finds there is inconsistency. I can envisage circumstances where the inconsistency is obvious or implicit from the papers before the Tribunal and, in particular, the record of proceedings. However I do not consider that this case is in that category.
15. I therefore find that the Tribunal has erred in law by not indicating the nature of the inconsistencies in the claimant's evidence.
16. For the reasons stated I am satisfied that the Tribunal's decision is erroneous in law. Accordingly I allow the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's decision. Consequently I refer the matter back to a differently constituted Tribunal for a re-hearing. However, the fact that this appeal has been allowed should not be taken as an indication as to the ultimate success of the claimant's appeal to a Tribunal.

(Signed): J A H Martin QC

CHIEF COMMISSIONER

8 July 2002