CIS_3512_2007
![]() |
[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 >> [2008] UKSSCSC CIS_3512_2007 (10 July 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSSCSC/2008/CIS_3512_2007.html Cite as: [2008] UKSSCSC CIS_3512_2007 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
[2008] UKSSCSC CIS_3512_2007 (10 July 2008)
DECISION OF SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
"The appeal is allowed.
The decision of the Secretary of State issued on 14/2/2005 is revised.
[The claimant] and [named man] were not living together as man and wife for the purposes of her Income Support claim and there was accordingly no change of circumstances which she could report to the DWP."
"17. – (1) subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any decision made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter shall be final; and subject to the provisions of any regulations under section 11 above, any decision made in accordance with those regulations shall be final.
(2) if and to the extent that regulations so provide, any finding of fact or other determination embodied in or necessary to such a decision, or on which such a decision is based, shall be conclusive for the purposes of –
(a) further such decisions; ….."
Mr Bartos informed me that there had been no regulations made in accordance with the powers given by section 17. The consequence of that, he submitted, was that while, in relation to the determination of fact in relation to whether the claimant and the named man were living together as man and wife, was final and conclusive for the purposes of entitlement, it was not so in relation to the issue of the disclosure of a material fact for the purposes of the overpayment decision made under section 71(5A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. In that connection, he referred me to two decisions by Mr Commissioner Mesher in CIS/1330/2002, paragraph 19 and CIS/2208/2003. With considerable reluctance, I have been persuaded that Mr Bartos' submission on this issue is correct. It seems to me absurd that the same issue of fact should be capable of being determined by two separate tribunals in a manner which is contradictory. However, that is what the law appears to provide and this will result in the freshly constituted tribunal to whom I have referred the case for a rehearing having to determine for the purposes of the recoverability of the overpayment, the same issue of fact as was determined by the tribunal of 12 May 2005.
State has drawn attention to in the course of this appeal.
(Signed)
D J MAY QC
Commissioner
Date: 10 July 2008