![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
UK Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> UK Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions >> [1991] UKSSCSC CIS_124_1990 (11 February 1991) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSSCSC/1991/CIS_124_1990.html Cite as: [1991] UKSSCSC CIS_124_1990 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
[1991] UKSSCSC CIS_124_1990 (11 February 1991)
DGR/SH/ts/7
Commissioner's File: CIS/124/1990
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1986
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL TRIBUNAL ON A
QUESTION OF LAW
DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
"(1) Can someone who is 'illiterate and speaks and understands only Gujarati' be in a better position for income support purposes than someone who can read and write and is familiar with the English language?
(2) If a person ought to have known of the capital limit, does this satisfy the 'intention' requirement of regulation 51(1) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987?
(3) Does the failure to make proper enquiries as to the capital limit constitute, without more, an intention to secure supplementary benefit within regulation 51(1)?"
It seemed that the tribunal had proceeded on the basis that the answers to these questions were respectively "no", "yes" and "yes". Accordingly, I thought that it was crucial that these matters should be resolved so that if, as has proved the case, a new tribunal were required to rehear the appeal, such tribunal might receive proper guidance.
5. The claimant understands very little English and relies on her husband who also relies on the help of friends. Language difficulty is a factor in the case. I would not regard difficulty over a language as in itself good cause for a delayed claim. Persons who are claiming, or receiving social security benefit should be diligent in seeking and obtaining interpretation of language and proper advice and it is not sufficient merely to rely on ignorance of language any more than it is good cause to prove, in the absence of any other relevant factors, merely illiteracy or ignorance of statutory provisions. Difficulty in communication, on the other hand, might in certain circumstances amount to good cause but there again steps should be taken to make matters clear (compare Decision C.S.100/49(K))."
Clearly, the Commissioner in that case took the view that a claimant cannot pray in aid illiteracy or unfamiliarity with the English language as justification for a late claim. Adopting this principle more widely, ignorance of the law, and more specifically ignorance of the statutory capital limit, is no more an excuse for someone who is illiterate and unfamiliar with the English language than it is for someone not suffering from those handicaps. The only concession that can be made is that, in certain circumstances, the claimant might be excused the consequences of a misunderstanding arising out of difficulty in communication. I can readily see that, if a claimant with no or insufficient command of English, diligently seeks, through the aid of an interpreter, to learn from the local office the meaning of the relevant statutory provisions, and in the course of communicating advice through an interpreter some error is made, the claimant should not be penalised on that account. In short, I agree with the observations of the Commissioner in R(G) 1/75 subject to the proviso mentioned above, so that a person illiterate and unfamiliar with the English language is in no better a position, and, of course, in no worse a position, than someone who is not illiterate and whose native tongue is English. On this point, the tribunal did not err in point of law.
(Signed) D G Rice Commissioner
(Date) 11 February 1991
SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS ACT 1976
THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONERS PROCEDURE REGULATIONS 1987 REGULATIONS 24(1)
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL TRIBUNAL ON A QUESTION OF LAW
DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER - CORRECTION
Name: Rudibai Rama (Mrs)
Social Security Case No: 415:06351 |
Appeal | Tribunal: | Leicester |
Paragraph 5 | Line 16 | delete | 'supplementary benefit' and |
insert | 'income support' | ||
Paragraph 9 | Line 2 | delete | 'supplementary benefit' and |
insert | 'income support' | ||
Paragraph 9 | Line 4 | delete | 'supplementary benefit' and |
insert | 'income support' | ||
Paragraph 10 | Line 7 | delete | 'supplementary benefit' and |
insert | 'income support' |
(Signed) D.G. Rice Commissioner
(Date) 15 March 1991
Commissioner's File: CIS/124/1990