CJSA 3960 2006

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
JudgeOther Judges / Other Commissioners/Deputy Commissioners
Judgment Date16 March 2007
CourtUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
Docket NumberCJSA 3960 2006
Subject MatterClaims and payments
THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONERS DECISION

1                     The claimant’s appeal succeeds. The decision of Enfield appeal tribunal given on 1 August 2006 under reference U/42/921/2006/01416 is wrong in law. I set it aside. I make the further findings of fact set out at paragraphs 14 and 26 below and I give the decision that I consider appropriate in the light of those findings, namely:

The appeal is allowed.

The decision of the Secretary of State issued on 26 February 2006 is set aside.

The time limit for the appellant to claim jobseeker’s allowance for the period from 4 February 2006 to 12 February 2006 (both dates included) is extended to 13 February 2006.

REASONS Introduction

2                     This appeal is about whether the appellant is entitled to a jobseeker’s allowance ("JSA") for the period from 4 February 2006 to 12 February 2006. JSA must normally be claimed on the very first day for which the claimant wishes to receive it and it is common ground that the appellant did not make his claim until 13 February 2006. The issue is therefore whether the normal time limit can be extended to validate that claim for the period before 13 February

3                     In this decision, references to “the Regulations” or to specific numbered regulations are to the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987

The facts

4                     The facts are not in dispute:

(a)                Before the events that led to this appeal, the appellant was unemployed but had been living on his savings rather than claim JSA. His girlfriend, N, with whom he did not then live, was receiving income support ("IS") as the lone parent of H, her 11 year-old daughter.

(b)               On Saturday 4 February 2006, the appellant moved in with N and H. The consequence for benefit purposes was that the appellant and N became an “unmarried couple” and N ceased to be a lone parent. As N did not fall into any of the other prescribed categories of people who can claim IS, she ceased to be entitled to that benefit.

(c)                On 1 February 2006 (i.e., before the appellant moved in with N) both members of the couple wrote to the local office dealing with N’s IS claim in order to report the change in their circumstances that was shortly to occur.

(d)               On Friday 3 February 2006, the local office wrote to N. So far as is relevant, the letter stated:

“About your income support

I am writing to tell you that your income support will change.

This means from 4 February 2006 you are not entitled. This is because your circumstances do not meet the conditions of entitlement.”

(e)                For whatever reason (and it may have been because the address was not absolutely complete), that letter was not delivered to N until the afternoon of Friday 10 February 2006.

(f)                On the next working day, Monday 13 February 2006, the Appellant contacted the Jobcentre and notified his intention to claim JSA.

(g)               Although benefit has now been awarded and paid from 13 February 2006, the Secretary of State has refused to extend time for the appellant to claim JSA so that it can be paid from 4 February 2006, the first day on which N was not entitled to IS.

The law

5                     Under section 1 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, no-one can be entitled to a social security benefit unless he first makes a claim for it within the appropriate time limit. For JSA, the time limit is “the first day of the period in respect of which the claim is made” (see Schedule 4 to the Regulations).

6                     I accept the submission by the Secretary of State’s representative that this is not a case in which the claim can be treated as having been made earlier that 13 February 2006. The appellant can therefore only succeed if the time limit in Schedule 4 can be extended.

7                     The circumstances in which such an extension is possible are set out in regulation 19(4)-(7). The tribunal concluded—correctly in my judgment—that paragraphs (4) and (5) of that regulation were not satisfied. The relevant parts of paragraphs (6) and (7) read as follows:

‘(6) In the case of a claim for … jobseeker's allowance, … where the claim is not made within the time specified for that benefit in Schedule 4, the prescribed time for claiming the benefit shall be extended, subject to a maximum extension of one month, to the date on which the claim is made, where—

(a) any one or more of the circumstances specified in paragraph (7) applies or has applied to the claimant; and

(b) as a result of that circumstance or those circumstances the claimant could not reasonably have been expected to make the claim earlier.

(7) The circumstances referred to in paragraph (6) are—

(a)-(b) 

(c) there were adverse postal conditions;

(d) the claimant (or, in the case of income support or jobseeker’s allowance, the claimant or his partner) was previously in receipt of another benefit, and notification of expiry of entitlement to that benefit was not sent to the claimant or his partner, as the case may be, before the date that his entitlement expired;

(e)-(h) …” (my emphasis).

The tribunal’s decision

8                     The tribunal accepted the evidence given by the appellant and N but felt obliged to refuse the appeal because he concluded that regulation 19(7) did not apply. In his statement of reasons, he said:

‘10. A question arose as to the situation of [N] so far as her previous award of Income Support was concerned. She effectively became [the appellant’s] partner from 04 02 06. At that time she was in receipt of Income Support. She (together with the appellant) had written to the Secretary of State to explain the change of circumstances with the two of them beginning to live together. The result was that the Secretary of State wrote to [N] on 03 February to say that her Income Support was terminating on 04 February, the end of that week. The Secretary of State had therefore written that letter prior to the expiry of entitlement to that benefit.

11. Of course, it was most unfortunate that, for reasons unknown, the letter did not arrive promptly to [N] but no evidence was placed before the tribunal to support any possible proposition that the delay in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT