|
As well as Comm Howell's decision CFC/2766/2003 which Paul Stagg quotes in his article, you might also want to look at Comm Rowland's decision CDLA/1823/03 where he states:
"A Tribunal of Commissioners in CIS/4348/03 has recently placed much emphasis on regulation 32(1) of the 1987 Regulations when holding Mr Commissioner Edwards-Jones QC in R(SB) 21/82 “to have been in error in importing a ‘reasonable expectation’ requirement into criteria that entitle the Secretary of State to recover an overpayment for a failure to disclose” under section 71(1). In CIS/4348/03, the claimant failed to comply with clear and unambiguous instructions as to the need to report certain facts. The Tribunal of Commissioners held that it was irrelevant that her mental capacity was limited. It may be that the practical impact of their decision is confined to such cases. Absent any suggestion of ill health or limited mental capacity, the significance of which were matters of controversy between Commissioners until the decision of the Tribunal, appeal tribunals and Commissioners would generally have considered that there had been a failure to disclose where disclosure had not been made despite being required by clear and unambiguous instructions, whether they had had Mr Commissioner Edwards-Jones’ dictum in mind or regulation 32(1) or both. The more difficult cases, which the Tribunal of Commissioners did not have to consider, are those where instructions to report facts are ambiguous or expressed in such general terms as to require some interpretation by a claimant or where written instructions have been qualified by an officer acting on behalf of the Secretary of State or, indeed, where there have been no relevant instructions at all but the claimant might have had reason to suspect that he was not entitled to all the benefit he was receiving."
David
|
