Terms & Conditions

[simon]

I was wondering if there is specific case law that would cover a submission I am currently preparing.

The claimant was a student and submitted a certificate in April 2005 that covered him until June 2005. Our Council Tax Section awarded the exemption for the whole year and did not review it until February 2006 when they removed the exemption and billed the claimant.

The claimant then applied for benefit in March 2006 on the basis of low earned income and requested backdating to June 2005 on the basis he didn’t received bill so wasn’t aware of his liability.

Prior to becoming a student he had claimed for the six year period 1997 to 2003 on the basis of low income.

Our Council Tax Section has refused to write off the charge due to their error on the basis they issued a review form in August 2005 which was not returned.

I consider that given his previous knowledge of Council Tax and Council Tax Benefit it was reasonable of him to have applied even without receiving a bill as he knew he was not a student so no longer exempt and his income was low and this had previously led to him receiving Council Tax Benefit.

Given students/ex-students usually wish to pursue these matters I was hoping there was a similar case reported but cannot find one. I would be extremely grateful if someone could remember one.

[Anonymous]

[b:d6c5c1ec87]I don’t know of any specific caselaw, but our appeals section normally includes the following decisions in all backdating cases. They provide a good structure in determining whether a person in a similar situation could have claimed benefit at the appropriate time. We normally include them in section 6 of the submission as follows;[/b:d6c5c1ec87]

6.2 R (S) 2/63

The decision has repeatedly been used in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Commissioner’s Decisions in providing a test to see if ‘good cause’ for a claim to be backdated has been shown. This decision will be referred to in more detail in section 7 of this submission.

6.3 Decision of the Social Security Commissioner.
CH/5221/2001

The Commissioner confirmed in point 4.2 of the decision that the relevant legislation on good cause for extending the time for claiming is in the same terms as the pre 1997 social security legislation, concluding that there was a considerable body of authority on that law which also applied in HB and CTB cases.

6.4 Decision of the Social Security Commissioner.
CH/2659/2002

The Commissioner drew reference in point 11 to the case of in Chief Adjudication Officer V Joseph John Upton, which commented upon the meaning and extent of the ‘good cause’ rule for social security benefits, concluding that the same rule also applies to HB and CTB. Point 15 comments that Upton adopts the test set out in R(S) 2/63 and confirms the good cause test set out in R(S) 2/63 as binding as to the meaning of the test. It also highlights in points 9 and 24 that the full test is ‘continuous’ good cause.

6.5 Decision of the Social Security Commissioner.
Chief Adjudication Officer V Joseph John Upton [1997]

Lord Justice Beldam specified how to determine good cause. He commented that, having found the primary facts, the appropriate standard in law should be established in order to assess the primary facts to be reasonable within that standard. He then applied the standard as being that determined in R(S) 2/63.

[b:d6c5c1ec87]Section 7 (decision makers subission) normally then reads;[/b:d6c5c1ec87]

7.1 CH/5221/2001 confirmed that the relevant legislation on good cause for extending the time for claiming is in the same terms as the pre 1997 social security legislation, concluding that there was a considerable body of authority on that law which also applied in HB and CTB cases. Both CH/2659/2002 and Chief Adjudication Officer V Joseph John Upton [1997] confirmed that the good cause test set out in R(S) 2/63 is binding for Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB) cases.

7.2 The ‘continuous good cause’ test outlined in R(S) 2/63 reads as follows;

In Decision C.S. 371/49 (reported) the Commissioner said ”’Good cause’ means, in my opinion, some fact which, having regard to all the circumstances (including the claimant’s state of health and the information which he had received and that which he might have obtained) would probably have caused a reasonable person of his age and experience to act (or fail to act) as the claimant did”. This description of good cause has been quoted in countless cases. It has stood the test of time. In our judgement it is correct.

7.3 The procedure was further clarified in Chief Adjudication Officer V Joseph John Upton [1997], where it was noted that, having found the primary facts, the appropriate standard in law should be established in order to assess the primary facts to be reasonable within that standard. The standard for ‘good cause’ was the determination made in R(S) 2/63 (detailed in 7.2).

[b:d6c5c1ec87]I would argue that, based on his prior experience claiming CTB whilst on a low income and not a student, a reasonable person in his situation whould have realised that, once his university degree course finished his exemption would end and they would be able to claim CTB on a low income again. You may want to review the information he would have had as a student regarding his CTAX exemption (but I’d be inclined to think that the majority of students would know that their CTAX exemption ended when their course did). I would suggest that good cause had not been shown – unless there were other factors that could have hindered his understanding, such as mental illness, mis-advice, etc, etc. I would also argue that he failed to notify the Council that his student exemption expired. Hope this helps![/b:d6c5c1ec87]

[Author]

Posts