BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
UK Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> UK Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions >> [2000] UKSSCSC CIS_20002_2000 (04 September 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSSCSC/2000/CIS_20002_2000.html Cite as: [2000] UKSSCSC CIS_20002_2000 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
[2000] UKSSCSC CIS_20002_2000 (04 September 2000)
MJG/CW/6
THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner's Case No: CIS/20002/2000
SOCIAL SECURITY ACTS 1992- 1998
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL TRIBUNAL ON A QUESTION OF LAW
DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
MR COMMISSIONER M J GOODMAN
"The claimant is a single woman who lives with her parents as a member of their household. She has been in receipt of income support and AA/DLA throughout the period of the appeal. On 31.7.90 the claimant appealed against the AO's decision of 27.7.90 not to award SDP.
On 24.7.92 a tribunal awarded SDP for the period 11.4.88 to 8.10.89 and adjourned thereafter. On 6.3.95 a tribunal awarded SDP for the period 9.10.89 to 1.12.94 following the Court of Appeal judgment in Bate v. CAO. The period from 2.12.94 onwards was adjourned pending further submissions from both parties.
On 17.8.99 a further tribunal found that it did not have the authority to correct the erroneous decision of the tribunal dated 6.3.95 despite the fact that the earlier tribunal had been adjourned and a final decision had not been issued. It was held that the award of SDP must remain in place. It is against this tribunal decision that the AO now appeals."
"[The claimant's] applicable amount is to include the severe disability premium for the period from 9.10.89 to 1.12.94. The matter is remitted to the adjudication officer for calculation with power to either party to restore to the list in the event of a dispute. The hearing of the appeal in respect of the period from 2.12.1994 is adjourned."
"The tribunal accepts the appellant's withdrawal of the claim in respect of the period from and including 2/12/94 and has no jurisdiction to rehear or reopen the appeal in relation to the period 9/10/89 to 1/12/94, the tribunal holding that that period was conclusively dealt with by the decision of [the social security appeal tribunal] given on 6/3/95"."
The tribunal gave detailed reasons for that decision.
"The tribunal was satisfied on the basis of the evidence and in accordance with the Court of Appeal decision in Bate v. CAO..that there were no non-dependants living with the claimant prior to 2.12.94. when the Income-Related Benefits Scheme (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 6) Regulations 1994 came into force."
"The tribunal accepts the appellant's withdrawal of the claim in respect of the period from and including 2/12/94 and has no jurisdiction to rehear or reopen the appeal in relation to the period 0/10/89 to 1/12/94 the tribunal holding that that period was inclusively dealt with by the decision of [the social security appeal tribunal] given on 6/3/95."
"22(3) Where an oral hearing is adjourned and at the hearing after the adjournment the tribunal is differently constituted..the proceedings at that hearing shall be by way of a complete rehearing of the case."
(Signed) M J Goodman
Commissioner
(Date) 4 September 2000