Social Security Chamber Decision Reports

 

Individual Tribunal decisions will not be published by the Chamber but, from time to time, the Chamber President Andrew Veitch intends to publish updates on matters of interest and points of law arising in decisions. 

 

Decision Report 16 - December 2022

Child Disability Payment

This appeal related to the child who had been awarded the middle rate of the care component and the lower rate of the mobility component, both of Child Disability Payment. Awards of the higher rate of both the care and mobility components were sought. This was a hearing on papers. The tribunal considered that it would be helpful if the appellant attended in person and if GP records in respect of the child could be obtained. 

The tribunal also considered that the appellant should be made aware, as should all appellants, that the tribunal has the discretion not only to increase an award or make an award if none has been made but also to remove an award if it considers this is appropriate. The tribunal was concerned to ensure that the appellant was aware of this situation and whilst not suggesting that that discretion might be exercised in this particular situation there was a possibility.

 

                                                                                                                                                                14 December 2022

Decision Report 15 - October 2022

Best Start Grant - School Age Payment

This appeal related to a child born in December 2016. An application was made for Best Start Grant (School-Age Payment) on 2 June 2022. The application was refused on the basis that it was outside the time limits in terms of the applicable regulations to qualify for payment. The decision was appealed on the basis that the appellant believed that application was made when the child started school.

In terms of the eligibility criteria in the regulations the claim should have been made between 1 June 2021 and 28th of February 2022. There are no provisions in applicable legislation that allows the tribunal to establish “good cause had been established or exceptional circumstances” and therefore extend the time period for claiming. The appeal was unsuccessful.

                                                                                                                                                                14 October 2022

Decision Report 14 - January 2023

Best Start Grant - Early Learning Payment

This appeal related to a child of three years six months and five days old as at date of decision. The appellant, the child’s mother, missed the deadline for claiming this benefit by five days. There are no provisions within the regulations that apply that take account of “exceptional circumstances or good cause.” 

The applicable regulations state that such a claim must be made between the second birthday of the child and the end of the day that falls six months after therefore birthday. No allowance is made for any application being accepted late even by such a short period. The appeal was unsuccessful.

 

                                                                                                                                                                23 January 2023

Decision Report 13 - August 2022

Child Disability Payment

The child in respect of this appeal was three years old at date of application. The child had had an allergic reaction and as a result had had one hospital admission and required to see a consultant paediatrician on a yearly basis.  Further steroids had been prescribed on an irregular basis. The child attended nursery on a regular basis and an award of the care component was sought on the basis that the child required constant supervision throughout the day to avoid substantial danger.

The tribunal did not consider that it could be reasonably stated that the attention and supervision needs of the child were substantially in excess of the normal requirements of a child of the same age although it was accepted that the situation may change as the child gets older.

In respect of both these appeals it is important to recognise that in order to get this benefit attention needs need to be substantially in excess of the normal requirements of a child of similar age. It is not enough that such a young child has attention needs, and young children do have attention needs throughout the day, but these needs must be substantially in excess of that which a normal child of similar age would require.

 

                                                                                                                                                                25 August 2022

Decision Report 12 - August 2022

Child Disability Payment

This was an appeal in respect of a child that was nine months old at the time the application for this benefit was made. An award was sought because it was maintained that the child was less steady on their feet and more likely to fall than a child of the same age due to the effects of the condition the child had been diagnosed with. It was submitted that the condition required the appellant to provide attention to the child for a significant portion of the day.

The tribunal noted the child attended a local children’s group once a week and did interact with other children. There was a medical report which indicated that the condition did not greatly impact the care needs of the child when compared to any other one-year-old.

The tribunal noted that a child can get an award of the lowest rate of the care component if they required attention from another person for a significant portion of the day in connection with bodily functions but that this attention would need to be substantially in excess of the normal requirements of a child of the same age.

The tribunal accepted the evidence but did not consider that in terms of the regulations the child was entitled to an award as the attention required was not substantially in excess of the normal requirements of a child of the same age.

 

                                                                                                                                                               12 August 2022

Decision Report 11 - November 2021

Funeral Expense Assistance - known as Funeral Support Payment

We had a recent case where the problem was that the application for the payment was made more than six months after the date of the funeral.  The reason for that was that the bill for the funeral had only been received the day before the application was made.

There are two points about this.  The first is that the six month time limit is absolutely rigid and there are no exceptions to that.  The second is that, provided the details of the funeral director are in the application, the bill does not need to be produced before the application is made since it is Social Security Scotland’s invariable practice to contact funeral directors themselves.

 

                                                                                                                                                               25 November 2021

Decision Report 10 - September 2021

Scottish Child Payment

We have received 12 appeals and decided 4. At the request of Social Security Scotland 7 appeals have been sisted (put on the shelf) whilst the law is looked at again. At present if a person who is not responsible for a child has been awarded and is receiving other benefits relating to the child before the person responsible for the child makes a claim for Scottish Child Payment it is simply not possible to make an award. That is clearly not what was intended and is unfair but the tribunal can only apply the law and has no power to look at what is fair.

 

                                                                                                                                                              02 September 2021

Decision Report 9 - February 2021

Funeral Expense Assistance - known as Funeral Support Payment

We had a recent case where the problem was that, although the appellant otherwise qualified for the benefit, for very good reasons, the funeral did not take place in Scotland.

 

The law is very clear and the payment can only be made if the place of the funeral is in the UK, a member state of the EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway or Switzerland.  The Tribunal has no discretion however persuasive the reasons might be for the location of the funeral or the cost of arranging it.

 

                                                                                                                                                                 19 February 2021

Decision Report 8 - February 2021

Young Carer Grant

We have had two appeals for Young Carer Grant and there are a number of points that should be noted about the qualifying conditions, namely:-

(a)   The young carer must have provided care over a period of 13 weeks ending with the day before the day on which the application is made.

 

(b)   The care must be provided in at least 10 weeks during that period for at least a total of 208 hours.

 

(c)   A carer can combine hours caring for up to three persons during that period.

 

The other point that has arisen is that where a young carer has made a successful application for the Grant and has been paid it, then a new application cannot be made any sooner than one year after the date of the successful first application. 

                                                                                                                                                                 15 February 2021

Decision Report 7 - April 2020

Funeral Support Payment

The first appeal in relation to Funeral Support Payment has been decided in the appellant’s favour. The appellant, although married to the deceased, did not live with the deceased and they had both claimed State Pension Credit as single people. The Agency had argued that because of those facts the appellant could not be treated as having “the nearest relationship” to the deceased. The law states that to qualify for this benefit, the application must be made by the “nearest relative” of the deceased. That will often be a spouse or civil partner unless they have permanently separated by agreement or by a court order. In this case there was no court order and very clearly no agreement to be permanently separated. There were very good reasons why the couple lived separately. They had no choice about how to claim State Pension Credit.

If a couple, although together in every other sense, for whatever reason do not intend to live in the same household or do not live in the same household for more than 52 weeks the DWP will treat them as single people. The same rule applies for a number of other DWP benefits. It does not mean that a couple have permanently separated. On the facts in this case it was very clear that the couple, although living separately were very much still married and had not permanently separated. I also observe that as can be seen in the press and online not all couples live under the same roof but they do remain very much together!

28 April 2020

Decision Report 6 - February 2020

Best Start School-Age Grant

A recent appeal raised the interesting point that the Best Start School-Age Grant discriminated against children born in January and February 2014.  That was because although they might start school in 2019, they could not have lodged an application on time in terms of the law.

Although welfare benefits are protected by Human Rights legislation, the appeal failed on two grounds.  Firstly, it is a school-age grant not a school grant.  Secondly, like with changes to ages for retirement benefits, the age for benefits at the start of life is not considered to be discrimination by the Courts.

17 February 2020

Decision Report 5 - January 2020

Universal Credit

As I indicated in the first Decision Report, the general rule is that on the date of the application, if there is no qualifying benefit in payment, then the application for Best Start Grant cannot be successful. That is true for most benefits. However, Universal Credit works in a different way to the other benefits.

There are two important points to note. The first is that an advance payment of Universal Credit is not a qualifying payment. Effectively, it is a non-interest bearing loan and is repayable. The second point is that Universal Credit is calculated in two stages. The first stage is a calculation of the entitlement and that is described by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) as being the 'UC maximum amount'. The DWP then makes deductions from that amount and arrives at what they describe as the 'UC adjusted amount'. If the UC adjusted amount is £0 then it is not an award of a qualifying benefit. It is quite possible that someone could have a UC adjusted amount of more than £0, but in fact is not paid anything because of other deductions. That person would still be treated as being in receipt of a qualifying benefit.

27 January 2020

Decision Report 4 - October 2019

Best Start School-Age Grant

There have now been a number of School-Age Grant appeals and almost all of them concerned children whose entry to school was deferred for a year. A number of the appellants have complained that the publicity about this is not clear and it is confusing. The Tribunal has not seen the publicity but, whether or not that is the case,  that is not something that the Tribunal can take into account.

The other issue that has arisen more than once is about financial need. The arguments are that the family really need the payment because otherwise they cannot afford the uniform or that because of a child’s disability they have far greater expense than other parents. The Tribunal can only decide whether the conditions laid down in the law are met and has no other powers. Financial need cannot be taken into account.

15 October 2019

Decision Report 3 - September 2019

Best Start School-Age Grant

The first appeal has been decided.  Although many people think that this Grant is available to help with the expense when a child starts school, in fact, that is not the case.  It is a School-Age Grant.  It can be applied for whether or not the child goes to school.  An application for the School-Age Grant must be made in a window which is:

(a)  If the child’s birthday is in January or February it is the period between 1 June of the calendar year in which the child’s 4th birthday falls and the last day of February in the following year, or

(b)   In every other case it is the period between 1 June of the calendar year in which the child’s 5th birthday falls and the last day of February in the following year.

As with the other Best Start Grants there is no provision in the legislation for extending that period.  The Tribunal has no power to extend the time limit or to consider whether the result of the application of the law is fair.

10 September 2019

Decision Report 2 - August 2019

Best Start Pregnancy and Baby Grant

We continue to receive appeals in relation to Pregnancy and Baby Grant and the issues are the same as those in the first five appeals described in the Decisions Report of May 2019.

Best Start Early Learning Grants

The first appeal has been decided.  An application must be made in the period between the child’s second birthday and the day the child becomes three years and six months old.  In that case the appeal was dismissed because the appeal was made when the child was a few weeks older than three years and six months.

There is no provision in the legislation for extending that period even if there is a good reason why the application could not be made on time.  The Tribunal has no power to extend the time limit or to consider whether the result of the application of the law is fair.

14 August 2019

Decision Report 1 - May 2019 

Best Start Pregnancy and Baby Grant

The first five appeals have been decided by the Tribunal.  The Agency chose not to attend any hearings and four of the appellants also opted for their appeals to be paper cases.

The Tribunal offered the appellant in the first appeal the opportunity to attend a hearing at a Tribunal Centre or alternatively to explain her point of view to the Convenor by telephone at a mutually convenient time.  She preferred to use the telephone.  That option would be offered to any appellant irrespective of whether or not the Agency wished to attend a hearing.  It is a more informal way of dealing with any appeal and can be arranged more quickly.

One of the appeals concerned someone who was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit.  The general rule is that on the date of the application, if there is no qualifying benefit in payment, then the application for this benefit cannot be successful.

In the remaining four cases, the application for the benefit was made after the baby was six months old.  In one case the application was only one day late.  In all four cases, the appellants gave reasons why the application was late.  Unfortunately for those appellants, the legislation is quite clear and the deadline is explicit.  The application will not be valid if it is made before the first day of the 24th week of pregnancy or after the end of the day, six months after the day the child was born.  There is no provision in the legislation for extending that window, even if there is a good reason why the application could not be made on time.

The Tribunal has no power to extend the time limit or to consider whether the result of the application of the law is fair.

31 May 2019