[2006] NISSCSC A3_04_05(AA) (12 May 2006) 
Application No:  A3/04-05(AA)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1998

ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE

Application by the above-named claimant for
leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner
on a question of law from a tribunal's decision
dated 19 October 2004

DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

	I refuse leave to appeal.

REASONS

	Having considered the circumstances of the case and any reasons put forward in the request for a hearing, I am satisfied that the application can properly be determined without a hearing.

	There is no arguable case that the tribunal’s decision was wrong in law.

	The tribunal was properly constituted.  The tribunal analysed the evidence rationally and in accordance with common sense.  It made all necessary findings of fact material to its decision.  There was evidence to support each of those findings.  On those findings of fact, the tribunal was entitled to make the decision that it did.  There is nothing to suggest that the tribunal misunderstood or misapplied the law.  The full statement of the tribunal’s decision contains a detailed explanation of the reasons why the tribunal made the decision that it did.  There was no breach of the principles of natural justice or Human Rights.

	In particular:

	(i)	When the appeal as to the date of claim was heard on 19 October 2004, regulation 6(8) and (9) of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987 were listed in paragraph 5(c) to Schedule 1 of the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999 as a decision against which no appeal lies;

	(ii)	In light of the decision of the Tribunal of Commissioners in Great Britain in CIB/3645/2002 and, on appeal, the decision of the Court of Appeal in England in Campbell v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] EWCA Civ 989, the test applicable by the Department, in deciding whether to extend the six week period, was a subjective test and, accordingly, the decision not to extend the six week period under regulation 6(8) and (9) of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987 was clearly not within the tribunal’s jurisdiction as the discretion to extend was a matter for the Department;

	(iii)	In light of the decisions noted in (ii) herein, it is not arguable that regulation 6(8) and (9) were ultra vires and the decision of a Great Britain Commissioner in CF3565/01 has confirmed that a lack of appeal rights was not contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

(signed):  J A H Martin QC

Chief Commissioner

(Dated): 12 May 2006