[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Samson, R (on the application of) v Epping Benefits Review Board [2001] EWCA Civ 543 (4 April 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/543.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 543

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(Mr Justice Crane)

		The Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2A Wednesday 4 April 2001

Wednesday 4 April 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN: This is an application for permission to appeal from the order of Crane J on 27 November 2000 refusing Ms Samson permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Epping Forest Benefits Review Board on 20 July 1999 which dismissed her appeal against the council's initial decision on 10 May 1999 to refuse her council tax benefit.
2. That decision was taken, both initially by the Council and on appeal by the Review Board, on the basis that Ms Samson is the registered joint owner of 34 Hickling Road at Ilford and, in accordance with the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992, was to be treated as possessing in excess of £16,000 capital and thereby disqualified from benefit under Regulation 28. Of course it was open to her to satisfy the Council or the Board, if she could, that she did not have such a capital interest in the property; and she was, by the original decision, told that she should, if she appealed, supply evidence in support.
3. The Review Board's decision was that:

"The claimant had failed to produce sufficient documentation to satisfy the Board that she no longer had any interest in the property at 34 Hickling Road, Ilford".

4. As the judge below pointed out:

"The Board had to decide, in the light of the evidence before it, what the factual position was. The claimant had had an interest in the premises. She was asserting that that interest had in fact come to an end. All she was able to produce at that time, apart from the letters that disappeared, was an order for possession. That simply shows that she had been ordered to give possession. It does not deal with the question of what interest she might have in the house.

It seems to me very difficult for this court to say that the Board were not entitled to come to the conclusion that they did, let alone that they were unreasonable in their conclusion or irrational or had no basis for it."

5. The judge then turned to a second point and suggested that Ms Samson faced a second difficulty, namely that she had failed to take up the express invitation to seek to have the Review Board decision set aside by an application to that effect within 13 weeks. Notwithstanding that suggestion by the judge, for my part I would be inclined to regard her letters respectively of 26 July and 31 August 1999 as an application for the initial decision to be set aside – albeit it is clearly right to say that Ms Samson indicated she had no faith in that course.
6. There is, however, this further point to be made (and it was made by the judge in paragraph 14 of his judgment), that even upon the failure of this challenge:

". . . the claimant is not without a remedy. She can apply for council tax benefit at any time and she can seek to have the claim backdated. If I might suggest it, her best way of proceeding is to gather clear evidence – if it is the case that she no longer has an interest in this house and that therefore she is not in possession of £16,000 – and to make a new application."

7. I have to say that that is entirely my conclusion too.
8. The closest that Ms Samson gets on the documents to evidence indicating that she has no valuable interest in this property is a letter from Dibb Lupton Alsop (as I understand it, solicitors for the Halifax Building Society) of 13 August 1999 (some weeks, be it noted, after the Review Board's decision now sought to be reviewed), which confirms that a possession order was made against Ms Samson and her former husband, and which concludes:

"There will be no remaining equity from the sale of the property and the sale will result in a shortfall to my client."

9. As I sought to explain to Ms Samson in the course of the short hearing this morning, even that letter, to my mind, is insufficient for her purpose.
10. What she should obtain is a clear statement from the Halifax Plc, the mortgagees of 34 Hickling Road, stating what has been the outcome of their repossession of the property: for what price they sold it; what was the extent of the debt owed to them; and so indicating what final balance for or against Ms Samson resulted from her interest in the property. If indeed that shows that she has had no financial interest in the property since that time, then, to my mind, armed with such a clear letter from the Halifax, she will on the face of it be in a good position to apply for backdated entitlement to council tax benefit.
11. I have no doubt that the present application must fail, but I direct that a copy of this short judgment be transcribed at public expense and a copy of it be provided to Ms Samson. I hope that she will, perhaps with assistance from a Legal Advice Centre, then obtain the further evidence which I suggest she should and, taking that and this judgment back to the Council, ask them finally to resolve the matter in her favour: I cannot, I fear, do more for her than that.
ORDER: Application refused