Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), January 06, 2009, [2009] UKUT 1 (AAC)
Linked as:
Extract
Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), January 06, 2009, [2009] UKUT 1 (AAC)
CJSA/4355/2006
[2009] UKUT 1 (AAC)CJSA/4355/2006DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNALADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBERThe claimant's appeal to the Upper Tribunal is allowed. The decision of the Bristol appeal tribunal dated 30 May 2006 involved errors on points of law, for the reasons given below, and I set it aside. The claimant's appeal against the Secretary of State's decision dated 31 July 2005 is remitted to a differently constituted tribunal within the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the directions given in paragraphs 84 to 86 below and further directions to be given by a district tribunal judge (Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, section 12(2)(a)(i)). REASONS FOR DECISION1. As from 3 November 2008 cases that were previously being dealt with by Social Security Commissioners are to be dealt with by the new Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber).2. This appeal arises from one of four linked cases heard together by the appeal tribunal of 30 May 2006, which issued a combined statement of reasons (having produced one decision notice for the three jobseeker's allowance (JSA) cases and one for the housing benefit case). I am giving four separate decisions, of which this is the lead decision on the main questions of law involved. It concerns the decision dated 31 July 2005 that the claimant was not entitled to JSA for the period from 24 December 1997 to 4 August 2004. The other cases are as follows. CJSA/4354/2006 concerns the appeal against the decision dated 5 December 2005 that the overpayment of JSA for the period from 24 December 1997 to 4 August 2004 was recoverable from the claimant under section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (appeal tribunal registration no 00759). CJSA/4353/2006 concerns the appeal against the decision dated 15 November 2004 that the claimant was not entitled to JSA from and including 5 August 2004 (appeal tribunal registration no 00927). CH/4356/2006 concerns the appeal against the decision dated 25 April 2005 that an overpayment of housing benefit had been incurred in the period from 30 March 1998 to 24 April 2005 and was recoverable from the claimant (appeal tribunal registration no 01069).3. There was an oral hearing of the four appeals to the Commissioner on 18 February 2008. The claimant attended with his ex-partner (who I shall call Ms B). The Secretary of State was represented by Mr Henry Hendron of the Office of the Solicitor to the Department for Work and Pensions. Bristol City Council was represented by Mr Thomas Regan. Very unfortunately, Mr Hendron only had the file for one of the appeals with him and had somehow not realised that there were three other appeals for hearing on 18 February 2008. I refused his request for an adjournment, the claimant and Ms B having travelled specially from Bristol with all the papers for all four appeals. Mr Hendron was able to fetch the additional three files from his office. Some new issues arose in the course of the hearing on which I gave all parties the opportunity to make written submissions. Those submissions were complete by the end of May 2008. I regret that there has been very long delay since, exacerbated by the complexity and difficulty of the legal and factual issues involved and by the pressure of other work. In addition, I had hoped very much to be able to substitute decisions on the claimant's four appeals, but have in the end concluded that I cannot do so except, for rather technical reasons, in the housing benefit case.The background in outline4. The reason for the Secretary of State's decision that the claimant was not entitled to income-based JSA for the period from 24 December 1997 to 4 August 2004, and the basis of the other decisions, was that the claimant had capital exceeding the limit in regulation 107 of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996 (£8,000 at all relevant dates). Although many assets had been considered in the course of investigations and taken into account in some decisions, the appeal tribunal accepted that only three assets counted towards the limit. The claimant's interest in other assets was either to be disregarded or had been transferred to Ms B when there was no question of an intention to secure entitlement to benefit. The first asset counted by the appeal tribunal was the amount in a NatWest current account, for which statements were available when the initial awarding decision was made covering the period from 22 December 1997 (£2,317.03) to 24 March 1998 (£990.13), with a balance of £5,147.65 on 30 December 1997. A later statement covering the period from 24 October 2002 to 7 November 2002 showed the payment-in of a cheque for £4,272.74 on the latter date, taking the balance to £4,796.09. The second asset was a house, 170 C Road, that the claimant had bought with his brother in 1986 (although, as will be seen, the beneficial ownership is a matter under dispute). The thir...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
