![]() |
[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 >> [2007] UKSSCSC CCS_1639_2007 (20 November 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSSCSC/2007/CCS_1639_2007.html Cite as: [2007] UKSSCSC CCS_1639_2007 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CCS/1639/2007
DECISION OF THE CHILD SUPPORT COMMISSIONER
The appeal by the parent with care against the decision of the Secretary of State made on 28 January 2006 is allowed to the extent that the only allowable travel related expenses to be added, by way of departure direction, to the exempt and protected income of the non-resident parent with effect from 11 November 2005 (the effective date of the non-resident parent's application for supersession of the existing departure direction) are (a) the sum of £20 per week in respect of petrol used in travelling from Broadstairs to Canterbury and (b) the sum of £24 per week in respect of parking charges in Canterbury.
However, this decision is not to be implemented (by way of recalculation of the child support maintenance payable by Mr. M) until the Secretary of State has considered, in the light of what is said in paragraphs 17 and 18 below, whether the calculation of Mr M's net income under the main formula assessment requires to be revised or superseded. Any of the parties may apply to me in the event of any dispute arising out of the implementation of this decision.
"(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the following costs shall constitute expenses for the purposes of paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 4B to the Act where they are incurred by the applicant for the purposes of travel between his home and his normal place of work –
(a) the cost of purchasing a ticket for such travel;
(b) the cost of purchasing fuel, where such travel is by a vehicle which is not carrying fare-paying passengers; or
(c) in exceptional circumstances, the taxi fare for a journey which must unavoidably be undertaken during hours when no other reasonable method of travel is available,
and any minor incidental costs, such as tolls or fees for the use of a particular road or bridge, incurred in connection with such travel.
(2) Where the Secretary of State considers any costs referred to in paragraph (1) to be unreasonably high or to have been unreasonably incurred he may substitute such lower amount as he considers reasonable, including a nil amount.
(3) Costs which can be set off against the income of the applicant under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall not constitute expenses for the purposes of paragraph (1)."
"Car parking is not specifically mentioned in the Regulation as an allowable expense and in the Tribunal's opinion it is neither a minor incidental cost nor is it an expense incurred in connection with the travel as it only arises after the journey has been completed."
The Secretary of State supports the Tribunal's decision on the ground that the parking expenses in this case cannot be described as a "minor incidental cost", having regard to the fact that they are more (£24 per week) than the cost of petrol (£20 per week). However, reg. 13 refers specifically to tolls or fees for the use of a particular road or bridge as an example of a "minor incidental cost". Some tolls are of the same sort of amount as the parking fees in the present case. I have in mind the tolls for use of the Severn Bridge (£5.10 per trip westbound), Second Severn Crossing (£4.90 per trip westbound), Humber Bridge (£2.70 each way) and M6 (£3.50). In CCS/2816/2004 the Deputy Commissioner referred to the cost (then £2.70 each way) of using the Sandbanks car ferry (across the entrance to Poole Harbour) as the sort of minor incidental cost which would qualify. I do not therefore think that the car parking charges in the present case were outside reg. 13 on the ground that they were not "minor".
(signed on the original) Charles Turnbull
Commissioner
20 November 2007