I'm considering a commissioner's appeal for a client regarding housing costs (old rules) and would appreciate any comments, ideas, opinions, etc, etc.

The issue concerns only the interpretation of para 14(1)(d) of schedule 3 to the IS regs (linking rule), which says:

"where the claimants partner (was recieving income support for a past period as a single claimant), provided that the claim was made within 12 weeks of claimant and his partner becoming one of a couple...the claimant shall be treated as having been in reciept of income support for the same period as his partner had been..."

The purpose of this paragraph is to help the claimant satisfy the waiting period for housing costs from an earlier time than he otherwise might. The difficulty lies in deciding which of the following two scenarios this paragraph applies to:

1) Claimant claims income support for the first time when his partner moves in;
2) Claimant has already been receiving income support for part of the waiting period and his claim is superseeded to include the partner.

We argued that the paragraph only applied to 1) but the tribunal decided that it can apply to 1) and 2).

What do you think?

Thanks,

Any thoughts...?

Hi Tony

The only definition of claim that I’m aware of is in the Claims and Payments Regs and is as follows:

“claim for benefit” includes–
(a) an application for declaration that an accident was an industrial accident;
(b) (9)
(c) an application for (1a revision under section 9 of the Social Security Act
1998 or a supersession under section 10 of that Act of) a decision for
the purpose of obtaining any increase of benefit (in respect of a child
or adult dependant under the Social Security Act 1975 or an increase in
disablement benefit under section 60 (special hardship), 61 (constant
attendance), 62 (hospital treatment allowance) or 63 (exceptionally
severe disablement) of the Social Security Act 1975), but does not include
any other application for (1a revision or a supersession of) a decision;

Much, if not all of the SSA 1975 has been repealed so unless the claim to include the partner counts as a supersession of “a decision for the purpose of obtaining any increase of benefit in respect of an adult dependent under the 1975 Act” then it cannot be a claim under the above definition.

It would be illuminating to know from what authority or line of reasoning the tribunal is arguing from.

Thanks Paul, this is very helpful and gives me a line to follow.

The facts of the case are interesting. When client's partner moved in his request for her time on IS to count towards his waiting period was rejected. He insisted and the DM eventually agreed to link his claim to his partner's former claim. As a result of that, his housing costs started in October.

That meant, that he couldn't take advantage of the january amendments and client appealed against that.

I initially advised that the decision was correct but then I began to wonder if it was correct to link the claims in the first place. Although uncertain I made the argument to the tribunal that in para 14(1)(d) the reference to 'claim' meant a 'claim for benefit', which doesn't incoroporate a revision or supersession. This was mostly on the basis that the provision is under 'linking rules' and linking rules link 'claims' and in this case it was not a 'claim' it was a supersession.

The tribunal disagreed becuase by restricting interpretation in the way I suggested means that some people will lose out from what is, after all, a positive concession designed to help people (lets face it, this doesn't happen that often) get help with housing costs sooner. Essentially, the judge says that the correct interpretation is the more generous one.

Based on what you've said, the tribunal might have been legally correct too. I hope so becuase this is one occassion i really, really don't want to be right. I would hate myself forever if we won at commissioners because one person's success would result in many people's hardship...

Thanks for the clue - I'll get on it.