CIS/4848/2002

DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1.	My decision is that the decision of the appeal tribunal was erroneous in point of law.  I set it aside and, in pursuance of the powers in that behalf contained in section 14(8)(a)(ii) Social Security Act 1998, I make such further findings of fact as are hereinafter contained and I give the decision as I consider appropriate in the light of them.  That decision is that the claimant did make adequate disclosure in April 2001 that he and his partner were an unmarried couple.  Accordingly, there was no overpayment recoverable under the provisions of section 71, Administration Act 1992.  In reaching this conclusion, I am much indebted to the industry of the Secretary of State’s representative and grateful for his submission of 17.4.03 (76/7).

2.	The factual background to this appeal is that the claimant was in receipt of income support and started living together with his partner on 13.4.2001.  Although he said he reported the fact to a “One Step Office”, that was thought not to be an office concerned with Social Security matters and, for the period 13.4.01 to 18.7.01, it was decided that there was a recoverable overpayment of £895.17, on the grounds that the claimant had failed to disclose that material fact to the appropriate office.  

3.	The basis of the claim is neatly encapsulated in the last para on p.20 of the tribunal’s statement of reasons and the first complete para on p.21.  I do not need to set that out in full and the following extract will suffice:

	“The question is whether or not [the claimant] failed to disclose.  I accept that he and his partner went to what is called One Stop Office in April [at Wetherby] and disclosed that they were living together.  I find it unlikely that they were told that they did not have to make a disclosure to anyone else, but more likely that they assumed that they did not have to do so, or misunderstood what was said to them.  I find that [the claimant] did not disclose to the relevant office which was the Income Support Leeds North‑West, the fact that he was then living together with [his partner].  Although I have some sympathy with [the claimant] the requirements are strict in that the information must be given to the relevant office and I find that it was not.  I find therefore that there was a failure to disclose …”

The tribunal accepted the description of the office involved as “a One Stop Office” but, as will appear, on the balance of probabilities, quite unknown to the tribunal, that was incorrect.  It is most likely – and seems almost certain – that the office concerned was displaying the ONE logo which, as will later appear, has different consequences.  

4.	Although I expressly raised the question whether the principle in Hinchy v. Secretary of State (C.A. 20.2.2003) was applicable, I can base my decision on other grounds in the particular context of this case.

5.	It appears from the Secretary of State’s submissions of 17.4.03 that there are two different types of office in this context viz. on the one hand, the “One Stop Office” or “One Stop Shop”.  That which is a distinct entity, run by the local Council, where a claimant can deal with all Council matters, rents, benefits, refuse, street lights, noisy neighbours etc. and not Social Security matters.  There is no requirement or arrangement for these local authority officers to pass on information regarding Social Security, though they may elect to do so on their own initiative.  The representative then informs me that on the other hand there are other premises which bear a “ONE” sign.  As such he states – and I agree – that those offices with that logo have further functions.  He says:

	“By contrast [to the One Stop Office] under the provisions of Claims and Payments Reg 4B(2)(b) there is a mandatory requirement that an office of a participating local authority (Leeds appears at Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Claims and Information Regulations 1999) bearing the ONE logo shall forward to the Secretary of State information relating to any other Social Security benefit, except only where it relates solely to housing or Council tax benefit.  A ‘living together as husband and wife’ question relates to several social security benefits, including income support.  …

	“6.	Notwithstanding the information form LCC, I observed on the Department’s ONE internet site that Wetherby office appears in a list of offices subsidiary to the Leeds Great George Street main ONE office, all the other subsidiary offices being Job Centres.  The site indicates that at the relevant time the ONE Leeds pilot was run by a public partner, Deloitte Consulting and was taken over by Job Centre Plus from 1.4.02.

	“7.	My telephone enquiries at Leeds Great George Street indicate an officer at the Leeds Seacroft Jobcentre, one of the subsidiary offices, had in mind a project to bring a ONE presence to the Wetherby LCC site.  Speaking to her in turn, she believed the service was introduced but that it was ultimately unsuccessful as there were difficulties in staffing the site.  The officer contacted Deloitte Consulting on my behalf only to find, oddly, there are no official records available.  However, the person to whom she spoke believes there was a ONE presence as she is reasonably sure her Company removed ONE signage from the Wetherby office around October 2001. 
	
	“8.	I would therefore submit that, on a balance of probabilities the Wetherby office was both a ONE office and a “One Stop Office”, in which case the claimant was at an appropriate office for disclosure.
	
	“9.	And while it may have been the case that no departmental officer was available to man the ONE position on 19.4.00 and the LCC officer did not appreciate their liability to pass on the information, and may well have been confining their answer to the claimant’s question of whether he need notify anyone else to whether he need notify any other LCC Department, that cannot rebound on the claimant.”

6.	The Secretary of State then goes on to submit on the “belt and braces” principle that in those circumstances it was also the fact that disclosure was not reasonably to be expected.

7.	I accept that submission and I therefore make the order as set out in paragraph 1 above.

					(Signed)	J M Henty
							Commissioner

					(Date)		21 May 2003