Secretary of State for Social Security v Harmon (Secretary of State for Social Security v Carter, Secretary of State for Social Security v Cocks)

For the Child Support Act 1991, benefit is “claimed” or “paid” when it is claimed or actually paid. The statutory provisions do not require the parent with care to be legally entitled to the benefit.

Accordingly, the Secretary of State may invoke the procedure for recovering child maintenance where benefit is being claimed or paid, even if entitlement is disputed. Where benefit is actually paid, the child support officer must treat the parent with care as having no assessable income under Schedule 1. The child support authorities have no jurisdiction to determine entitlement to social security benefit, and the assessment need not be deferred or adjourned for that purpose.

These three conjoined appeals concerned decisions of Child Support Commissioners in favour of absent parents. The Commissioners had held that the Secretary of State could use the procedure under section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991 only where the parent with care was claiming or receiving benefit to which she was lawfully entitled.

The Commissioners also held that social security authorities had exclusive jurisdiction to determine entitlement and that child support proceedings could be deferred or adjourned pending review of the benefit decision. The central issue was whether “claimed” and “paid” required lawful entitlement, or referred simply to the fact of a claim or payment.

1. Appeals allowed. The Commissioners’ decisions were set aside and the tribunals’ decisions were reinstated, subject to an amendment concerning Mr Harmon’s housing costs.
2. The statutory scheme creates alternative and mutually exclusive procedures. A parent with care who is claiming or receiving benefit proceeds under section 6 rather than making an independent application under section 4. That classification depends on the fact of the claim or payment, not on lawful entitlement.
3. The ordinary meaning of “paid” is “actually paid”. The statutory context confirms that meaning. Section 6 expressly refers to benefit being claimed before entitlement has necessarily been determined. Treating “paid” as “lawfully paid” would make the scheme uncertain and could invalidate the entire maintenance process, depriving children of maintenance and relieving the absent parent of liability.
4. Paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 1 operates on the same factual basis. If benefit is claimed but not yet paid, the claimant’s income is assessed. If benefit is paid, the claimant is treated as having no assessable income. The child support officer is not required to investigate whether the benefit was properly payable.
5. The child support authorities cannot conclusively determine entitlement to social security benefit. Since entitlement is irrelevant to their statutory functions, there is no basis for deferring an assessment or adjourning an appeal merely to allow the social security authorities to review entitlement.

• Court of Appeal: Allowed the Secretary of State’s appeals from decisions of the Child Support Commissioners. The tribunals’ decisions were reinstated, with a limited amendment in Harmon.
• Child Support Commissioners: Allowed the absent parents’ appeals and remitted the cases for consideration of possible adjournments pending review of benefit entitlement.
• Child Support Appeal Tribunals: Held that actual receipt of income support was sufficient and rejected the absent parents’ challenges.