R v Secretary of State for Social Services, ex parte Child Poverty Action Group
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WOOLF |
| Judgment Date | 07 October 1988 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1988] EWCA Civ J1007-1 |
| Docket Number | 88/0784 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 07 October 1988 |
and
[1988] EWCA Civ J1007-1
Lord Justice Balcombe
Lord Justice Woolf
Lord Justice Russell
88/0784
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
(MR. JUSTICE SCHIEMANN)
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. RICHARD DRABBLE (instructed by Penny Wood, Solicitor to the Child Poverty Action Group) appeared for the Appellants.
MR. MICHAEL BELOFF Q.C. MR. DUNCAN OUSELEY and MR. JONATHAN McMANUS (instructed by The Solicitor to the Department of Health and Social Security) appeared for the Respondents.
This is the judgment of the court.
The appeal is from a decision of Schiemann J. dismissing the appellants' application for judicial review. The appeal raises issues as to the proper construction of sections 98 and 99 of the Social Security Act 1975 as amended. The appellants contend that those statutory provisions have been wrongly interpreted by the Secretary of State and the Chief Adjudication Officer and in consequence claims for supplementary benefit, particularly in London, have not been administered in accordance with the duties placed upon the Secretary of State and the Chief Adjudication Officer.
If the appellants' contentions are correct, it is the individual claimants for supplementary benefit whose claims have been delayed who were directly affected as a result of the Secretary of State and the Chief Adjudication Officer misinterpreting their responsibilities. However, the application for judicial review has been made by the appellants because the issues raised are agreed to be important in the field of social welfare and not ones which individual claimants for supplementary benefit could be expected to raise. Furthermore, the Child Poverty Action Group and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux play a prominent role in giving advice, guidance and assistance to such claimants. In addition, many claimants live within the Boroughs of Islington and Hackney and those boroughs contend that the way the supplementary benefit scheme has been administered has adversely affected the boroughs in their carrying out of their responsibilities as well as adversely affecting their residents who are individual claimants for benefit.
Since the date of Schiemann J.'s judgment supplementary benefit has been replaced by income support but the outcome of this appeal is still a matter of importance since sections 98 and 99 of the Social Security Act 1986 apply to income support as well as to contributory benefits, industrial injury benefits and family credit.
On the application for judicial review declarations were sought also as to the proper interpretation of two paragraphs, namely paragraphs 13002 and 13052 of the "S" Manual. The purpose of the manual is to provide detailed guidance to adjudication officers on the determination of questions and entitlement to supplementary benefit and to the staff of the Department on the administration of the supplementary benefit scheme. The way in which the manual is printed distinguishes between advice given by the Chief Adjudication Officer and procedural instructions of the Secretary of State. However, on the introduction of income support, the paragraphs of the "S" Manual in respect of which declaratory relief was sought ceased to have effect and accordingly, when opening this appeal, Mr. Drabble, on behalf of the appellants, abandoned any claim for the first two declarations set out in his application for judicial review. It is not necessary, therefore, for us to refer to those declarations but we should refer to the third declaration since that sets out clearly the manner in which the appellants contend claims both under the previous regime and the new regime should be dealt with if the Secretary of State and the adjudication officers are to comply with the law. The declaration reads as follows:
"A declaration that the duties imposed by ss. 98 and 99 of the Social Security Act 1975 involve, on the true construction of the relevant provisions, the following propositions:
(i) The duty to refer a claim to an Adjudication Officer arises as soon as a claim for benefit is received by the Secretary of State.
(ii) That duty is to refer the claim for determination in accordance with s. 99 and involves referring the claim to an Adjudication Officer who is in a position to take the claim into consideration.
(iii) That the Adjudication Officer to whom a case has been validly submitted must dispose of it within 14 days if practicable; and that in deciding what is practicable regard can be had to matters internal to the claim but not to extrinsic factors."
The Secretary of State and the Chief Adjudication Officer do not accept that this declaration accurately sets out their statutory duties. They contend the Secretary of State is entitled, in accordance with the practice which he adopted previously in respect of claims for supplementary benefit or single payments, to carry out certain administrative tasks before a claim is referred to an adjudication officer that there is no duty to have an adjudication officer available immediately to consider the claim and that a decision can be lawfully reached after 14 days if it is not practicable for a decision to be reached earlier, for example, because of a sudden influx of claims or because of the non-availability of adjudication officers because of sickness or some other reason.
As to the handling of claims for supplementary benefit, the practice adopted by the Department appears clearly in paragraph 10 of the affidavit sworn on the Department's behalf by Brian Taylor. Mr. Taylor explains that most claims for supplementary benefit are made by post. The claimant is asked to provide on the claim form detailed information about his circumstances which is relevant to the assessment of his claim. When the claim form is received in the office it is associated with any existing papers of the claimant (the case papers) and passed for action to an administrative officer, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. Some of the information on the form needs to be checked for accuracy and sometimes further information has to be sought either from the claimant or, for example, from his former employer before the claim can be determined. Most of these further enquiries are handled by post or on the telephone but occasionally an office interview or a home visit is required.
Mr. Platt, the Chief Adjudication Officer, confirms this evidence from Mr. Taylor and in paragraph 7 of his affidavit Mr. Platt summarises the position in this way:
"The adjudication function is quite separate from the receipt and preliminary investigation of claims which is for the Secretary of State. Adjudication Officers can call for more evidence and can review their own decisions if new evidence comes to light."
The paragraphs of the "S" Manual to which we have referred were in terms which reflected the approach of the Secretary of State and the Chief Adjudication Officer.
Schiemann J. accepted the Secretary of State's and the Chief Adjudication Officer's view of their statutory requirements. He rejected the appellants' submissions and he refused to grant any declaratory relief and dismissed the application for judicial review.
Having outlined the rival contentions of the parties it is convenient to turn to the relevant statutory provisions and we begin with the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 in its finally amended form.
Section 2(1):
"The question whether any person is entitled to supplementary benefit and the amount of any such benefit and any other questions relating to supplementary benefit which arises under this Act or section 6 of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980 shall be determined by an adjudication officer appointed under section 97 of the Social Security Act 1975…in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of this section.
The power to make the regulations is contained in section 14.
That section provides:
"(1) Regulations may make provision for carrying into effect this Part of this Act…; and nothing in any other provisions of this Act shall be construed as prejudicing the generality of this subsection.
(2) Regulations may make provision—
(a) for requiring claims for supplementary benefit to be made in such manner and within such time as may be specified within the regulations;…
(c) for prescribing the evidence which is to be provided in support of claims for supplementary benefit."
Regulations were made under section 14 and these were the Supplementary Benefits (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1981, as amended. Regulations 3 and 4 are relevant. Regulation 3 provides:
"(1) Subject to the following provisions of this regulation, every claim for benefit shall be made in writing to the Secretary of State either—
(a) in the case of a claim for a pension or allowance, on a form approved for the purpose by him and supplied without charge by such persons as he may appoint or authorise for the purpose;, or
(b) in the case of any claim, in such manner as he may accept as sufficient in the circumstances of any particular case or class of cases.
(2) A claim for benefit—
(a) in the case of a claim for an allowance by a claimant required to […] be available for employment pursuant to section 5, shall be delivered or sent (for forwarding to an office of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd
...Wade's work on Administrative Law, to which I shall come later. 44Mr Pleming also referred to R v Secretary of State for Social Services and Another, ex parte Child Poverty Action Group and Others [1989] 1 All ER 1047, where that group were held to have a sufficient interest or standing. H......
-
Aireborough Neighbourhood Development Forum v Leeds City Council
...that it had not. In the later case of R v Secretary of State for Social Services and anor ex parte Child Poverty Action Group and anor [1990] 2 QB 540, [1989] 1 All ER 1047 CA, no argument was addressed to the court on the issue of jurisdiction to entertain the application at the suit of ......
-
CIB 1454 2002
...case been complied with. It may perhaps have been thought that the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Secretary of State ex p CPAG [1990] 2 QB 540 (declining to grant judicial review to force the Secretary of State to refer cases to adjudication officers without delay) enabled such ques......
-
R (on the application of Black) v Secretary of State for Justice
...for the parties alone, since it goes to the Court's jurisdiction and jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent: see R v Secretary of State for Social Services, ex p. CPAG [1990] 2 QB 540. However, in the circumstances of the present case, I am satisfied that the Claimant does have standin......
-
Public Law and Popular Justice
...19.7. The rubric would cover the class of potential claimantsfor welfare benefit in RvSecretary of State for Social Security, ex p CPAG [1990] 2 QB 540.January 2002] Public Law and Popular JusticeßThe Modern Law Review Limited 2002 legal process. No serious credentials in the form of ‘democ......