|
There are numbers of these sorts of comments as a quick trawl through our Social security Law CD-Rom shows. These might fit in with your search
CSIS/815/2004
"21. As the Deputy Commissioner said at paragraph 17 of his decision, and I think he was right:
“I take this view because entitlement to income support is a complex matter. Had an application form been supplied, the claimant would have been asked whether he had any claims for benefit pending and his potential entitlement would have been identified. I think that in a benefit system as complex as that of the United Kingdom, the claimant cannot be expected to identify all the circumstances which may open the door to a successful claim. In my view, he received information which led him to believe that a claim for income support would not succeed. He is within sub-paragraph (d).”"
Often quoted
"Following Thomas (EC Ref c328/91), it is accepted that under this Article discrimination in respect of other benefits schemes can only be justified "if such a discrimination is objectively necessary in order to avoid disrupting the complex financial equilibrium of the social security system or to ensure consistency between retirement pension schemes and other benefit schemes."
You may be thinking of,
R1/04(SF) from the Lords
"56. The benefits system is necessarily enormously complex. This was true even in the early days, when it was mainly based on flat rate contributory benefits, and means tested benefits were seen as a safety net but not the norm. It has become even more so with increasing attempts to target benefits upon the most needy. The history of funeral payments sketched above is a good illustration of this trend. The general public cannot be expected to understand these complexities. Claimants should not be denied their entitlements simply because they do not understand them. It has been a consistent objective of social security administration over the years to devise user-friendly forms and procedures to enable the benefits agencies to discover whether or not a claimant is entitled to benefit."
There's a Norther Ireland decision C2/02-03(IS)
“The fact that Income Support was to be reduced following a reduction in his wife’s DLA also appears to run contrary to the guiding principle of Income Support. It is submitted that it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that Income Support will rise if anything, following a reduction in another source of income. In any event, it is reasonable for , given his very limited knowledge and understanding of the complex benefits system, to assume that his benefits would not be adversely affected by a reduction in his wife’s DLA.”
From Hockenjos v SoS
"54. Mr Paines bluntly submits that the appellant has not advanced a better system. Mr Drabble submits that it is obviously possible to design a subsistence benefit system which copes more adequately with the problem of shared care than the present one does. Something less rigid and more flexible is required. The Secretary of State's response is that this would give rise to administrative problems and expense. However, there is no evidence that the government has tried to tackle the problem and in particular balance cost and administrative convenience against mitigating the rigidity of the scheme. Mr Drabble's argument is that social security legislation is full of examples of the government addressing complex issues in regulations. Whilst some element of what he calls "bright line" treatment is no doubt inevitable, leaving a 40% minority carer with no assistance for child costs during a period of involuntary unemployment is simply not acceptable. A system does not necessarily have to be designed on a night by night care basis or even on a week by week basis. It may be necessary to look at a longer period for example three months, see eg how shared care is dealt with under the Child Support Acts where a father does not pay a lower rate of child support unless he has the child for more than 104 nights a year. In my judgment there is considerable force in these submissions."
or Howker v SoS
"47. I agree that this appeal should be allowed for the reasons given by Peter Gibson L.J. Mr.Sales has rightly emphasised the important constitutional principle that it is for Parliament to determine how public money should be spent. Parliament has determined that we should have a system of social security benefits for those who are unable to provide for themselves. The broad outlines are laid down in legislation but the scheme is necessarily extremely complicated and requires frequent amendment to take account of social, economic and (as in this case) legal change. The details have to be contained in delegated legislation. But Parliament has also recognised the need for both the Secretary of State and for Parliament to have independent and expert social policy advice before making changes to the scheme. There are complex questions involved, about the definition of need, about equity between different groups, about the right kind of incentives, all in the context of very large numbers of people and very large sums of public money. In the context of a scheme whose fundamental purpose is to relieve 'want', the need for independent and expert advice is particularly clear when a change to the regulations might deprive a large number of existing claimants of their benefit."
another strong contender is Kerr v Department for Social Development in the Lords
"56. The benefits system is necessarily enormously complex. This was true even in the early days, when it was mainly based on flat rate contributory benefits, and means tested benefits were seen as a safety net but not the norm. It has become even more so with increasing attempts to target benefits upon the most needy. The history of funeral payments sketched above is a good illustration of this trend. The general public cannot be expected to understand these complexities. Claimants should not be denied their entitlements simply because they do not understand them. It has been a consistent objective of social security administration over the years to devise user-friendly forms and procedures to enable the benefits agencies to discover whether or not a claimant is entitled to benefit."
Another reference to complexity is in CIS/2031/2003
"9. The first argument is based on the facts that when she claimed the Grant, the claimant did not indicate that she had a partner and indicated that her own claim for income support was awaiting a decision. It is argued that this latter was inconsistent with her having a partner. Accordingly there was no error of law because there was no evidence on which the tribunal could have reached any other decision. I reject the logic of this argument. The fact that the claimant and Mr W did not regard themselves as partners does not mean that, as a matter of law, they were not partners. Anybody may claim income support – whether there is entitlement is a different question and the system is so complex that it is dangerous to draw conclusions about other matters from the mere fact that income support has been claimed. "
Not quite what you want, I suspect, but my favourite from Commissioner Hywel
9. The principle as thus understood has been described as extraordinary, and draconian: (see Mesher, Income Related Benefits, 1996 Edn. 191, and the Commissioners' decisions in cases CIS/408/1990 para 5, CIS/807/1991 para 6; though the second epithet may be thought a little unfair to Draco, whose harsh code of 621 BC was at least coherent). It is said to be for administrative convenience, to save the authorities the trouble of inquiring into the actual beneficial interests in jointly held or pooled assets, which may be difficult to discern. Reliance is placed on the very wide empowering legislation, which does indeed allow regulations to prescribe that for the purposes of assessing income or capital resources black must be treated as white and vice versa, and people as possessing what they do not, or not possessing what they do.
|
