Oladeji v Social Security Commissioner

Ignorance of entitlement does not automatically establish good cause for a late benefit claim. The relevant inquiry includes whether it was reasonable for the claimant to make no enquiries in light of the information available to her. An official communication which may reasonably have caused a claimant to believe that claiming benefit would prejudice a spouse’s immigration application is a potentially material circumstance and must be addressed. The judgment granted permission to appeal because the lower decisions appeared not to have considered that issue. It did not determine the substantive appeal.

The applicant lost her employment in August 1996 but did not claim jobseeker’s allowance until February 1997. She had understood, partly because of a letter from the British High Commissioner in Lagos, that claiming public funds might prejudice her husband’s application to join her in the United Kingdom. The allowance was awarded from February 1997, but not backdated to the date of unemployment.

The Social Security Appeal Tribunal dismissed her appeal. The Deputy Social Security Commissioner upheld that decision, finding that she should have made enquiries when she was uncertain whether she could claim. The applicant sought an extension of time and permission to appeal. The central issue was whether the High Commissioner’s letter could constitute reasonable cause for the delay and whether the lower decision-makers had properly considered it.

1. Permission and extension of time. The Court of Appeal was considering an application both to extend time and for permission to appeal. Ward LJ regarded the prospects of success as finely balanced and was not prepared to dismiss the application without hearing from the respondent department. The applicant’s lack of money was relevant to the delay, and the court indicated that a long delay might be overlooked if the prospects of success were sufficiently strong.
2. Good cause for late claiming. The tribunal had applied the approach that ignorance of rights ordinarily does not amount to good cause unless it was reasonable for the claimant to make no enquiries because she believed there was nothing to enquire about. The Deputy Commissioner considered that the evidence entitled the tribunal to find that the applicant should have enquired about her rights.
3. Material omission. Ward LJ was troubled by the complete absence of reference in the lower decisions to the High Commissioner’s letter. The letter referred to an immigration requirement that the parties be maintained without recourse to public funds. The court considered it necessary to address whether that communication itself gave the applicant reasonable cause for the belief which the lower decision-makers found she held.
4. Disposition. The application was resumed on notice to the Social Security Department so that it could explain the omission and address the letter’s significance. Permission to appeal was granted. The substantive merits of the appeal were not decided in this judgment.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Permission to appeal granted; the application was to be resumed on notice to the Social Security Department: [2000] EWCA Civ 419.
2. Deputy Social Security Commissioner Appeal from the tribunal dismissed.
3. Social Security Appeal Tribunal Appeal from the adjudication officer dismissed and refusal to backdate jobseeker’s allowance upheld.
4. Adjudication officer Jobseeker’s allowance was awarded from February 1997, without backdating to September 1996.