THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONERS

Commissioner’s Case No:  CSDLA/101/00

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1998

APPEAL FROM THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL UPON A QUESTION OF LAW

COMMISSIONER:  D J MAY QC

DECISION OF SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1.	My decision is that the decision of the disability appeal tribunal given at Glasgow on 5 May 1999 is erroneous upon a point of law.  I set it aside.  I remit the case to a freshly constituted appeal tribunal for a rehearing.  

2.	The claimant has appealed against the decision of the tribunal referred to in paragraph 1 to the effect that she is not entitled to an award of the mobility or care component of disability living allowance.  

3.	Both parties assert that the tribunal erred in law.  In his submission of support the Secretary of State said –

“I submit that Statement of Material Facts and Reasons for Decision is a recitation of the evidence and not findings of fact based on it, there are no reasons given in the statement for the decision of the tribunal.  The decision notice (97) states that ‘The tribunal did not find evidence of appellant credible or convincing’, the tribunal do not give a reason for this.  Also ‘Tribunal preferred evidence of the doctors’, again no reason is given for this preference.”

I consider that submission shortly and succinctly sets out the manner in which the tribunal erred in law.  I need say no more than that standing the agreement between the parties.

4.	I was, however, not prepared to dispose of the case in the manner suggested in paragraph 7 of the Secretary of State’s submission to the Commissioner.  This is because there was a further submission in paragraph 5 of the Secretary of State’s submission making reference to what was said by Mr Commissioner Walker QC in CSDLA/103/98 as a basis for the proposition that the tribunal decision erred in law.  Perusal of that decision demonstrates that it was a decision made with the consent of parties under regulation 22(2) of the Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) Regulations 1987.  It is not in my view appropriate for the Secretary of State to rely on a direction made in a decision without reasons as authority for a proposition.  This is because the decision has been given without reasons and it is not possible to deduce from it the basis upon which the Commissioner has reached the proposition he is making as a direction.  Accordingly I have not determined that submission.  I have noted a tendency by both representatives and the Secretary of State to use directions in decisions without reasons in this way and it is a practice which for the reasons set out above is disapproved and must stop.  

5.	In relation to the higher rate of the mobility component the tribunal will note what was said in CSDLA/500/98 and the authorities referred to in paragraph 18 thereof. 

6.	The appeal succeeds.

					(signed)
					D J MAY QC
					Commissioner
					Date:  16 August 2000