CH 1815 2005
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge E. A. L. Bano |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 2005 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Docket Number | CH 1815 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Housing and council tax benefits |
R(H) 2/06
|
Mr E A L Bano Commissioner 14 December 2005 |
CH/1815/2005 |
Claim – effect of withdrawal of claims for housing benefit and council tax benefit
The claimant was in receipt of income support. In May 2001 he claimed housing benefit and council tax benefit. The claim was incomplete and he re-submitted it in June 2001, with a covering letter, stating he no longer wished to claim housing benefit. In July 2001 an investigating officer from the local authority visited the claimant and questioned him about capital from the sale of his wife’s property. The claimant refused to answer any questions about his wife. Later the same day the claimant wrote to the investigating officer, withdrawing his claim. The local authority informed the Benefits Agency, which decided that he was not entitled to income support after the sale of the house and that income support paid since that date was overpaid and recoverable. The claimant appealed against the income support decisions and in December 2003 an appeal tribunal allowed his appeal, finding that the capital resulting from the sale of the house was exempt capital. The claimant informed the local authority of the tribunal decision and sought to have his claim of June 2001 reinstated on the ground that he had withdrawn the claim under duress. The local authority refused to reinstate his claim and the claimant appealed. The tribunal dismissed his appeal, holding that, by withdrawing his claim, the claimant had prevented it from being reconsidered after the outcome of his income support claim became known. The Commissioner granted leave to appeal because he considered it arguable that the tribunal ought to have considered whether (in the light of CJSA/3979/1999 and CDLA/1589/1999) the withdrawal of the claim following the investigation interview should be treated as a genuine expression of the claimant’s intention to do so
Held, dismissing the appeal, that
1. regulation 74 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 provides for the amendment or withdrawal of a claim by a claimant at any time before it is decided and therefore the effect of the covering letter sent by the claimant in June 2001 was to amend the claim so as to claim only council tax benefit (paragraph 8);
2. the letter sent by the claimant following the interview with the investigating officer constituted an unambiguous and unequivocal notice of withdrawal of the remaining council tax benefit claim for the purposes of regulation 64 of the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations, which is in the same terms as regulation 74 of the 1987 Regulations (paragraph 8);
3. although in some cases it will be possible to make a fresh claim which can be backdated to cover the period of a claim which has been withdrawn, the consequence of a genuine and effective withdrawal is, in the absence of any provision permitting reinstatement, to prevent any award from being made on the claim after the withdrawal took effect (R v Hampstead and St Pancras Rent Tribunal ex parte Goodman [1951] 1 KB 541; Boal Quay Wharfingers Limited v Kings Lynn Conservancy Board [1971] 1 WLR 1558; Rydqvist v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2002] EWCA Civ 947, [2002] 1 WLR 3343 followed (paragraph 9);
4. although different considerations may apply in the case of claimants who are not fully able to manage their affairs or to understand the consequences of their actions, a claimant who is not subject to any such disability would normally have to establish that the withdrawal of a claim was induced by some factor such as threatening or overbearing behaviour, deception or similar improper conduct in order to show that notice of withdrawal of a claim was not a genuine expression of the claimant’s intention at the time when the notice was given and there was no evidence of any such conduct in this case (paragraphs 10 to 14).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial