Samson, R (on the application of) v Epping Benefits Review Board

On judicial review, a benefits review board’s factual assessment will not be disturbed merely because the claimant disputes it. Where the board had evidence on which it could determine the factual position, intervention requires unreasonableness, irrationality, or the absence of any evidential basis. A possession order, without further evidence, does not establish that a claimant has ceased to possess a valuable capital interest in property. Evidence addressing the outcome of repossession, the sale price, the secured debt and the resulting balance may be needed. A failed challenge does not necessarily prevent a fresh benefit application or a request for backdating.

Ms Samson sought permission to appeal from Crane J’s refusal of permission to apply for judicial review. The challenge concerned the Epping Forest Benefits Review Board’s dismissal of her appeal against the refusal of council tax benefit.

The Council and the Board treated her registered joint ownership of a property as capital exceeding £16,000 under the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992, regulation 28. She argued that her interest had ended and relied principally on a possession order and later correspondence. The central issue was whether the Board had been entitled to conclude that she retained an interest in the property.

Lord Justice Simon Brown refused the application for permission to appeal.

1. The Board had to determine, on the evidence before it, whether Ms Samson’s previous interest in the property had ended. Its conclusion that she had failed to produce sufficient documentation was open to it. Judicial review could not be used to re-determine that factual issue unless the conclusion was unreasonable, irrational or unsupported by any evidential basis.
2. A possession order established only that Ms Samson had been ordered to give possession. It did not establish what continuing legal or financial interest she retained in the property. The later letter from solicitors for the mortgagee, stating that there would be no remaining equity and that the sale would produce a shortfall, was also insufficient by itself.
3. The appropriate further evidence would be a clear statement from the mortgagee identifying the repossession outcome, sale price, debt owed and final balance attributable to Ms Samson’s interest. If that evidence showed that she had no financial interest, it would place her in a good position to seek backdated council tax benefit.
4. The judge below had suggested an application to set aside within 13 weeks. Lord Justice Simon Brown considered that Ms Samson’s letters of 26 July and 31 August 1999 could be regarded as an application concerning the initial decision, although she had expressed little confidence in that route. In any event, she remained able to make a fresh application for benefit and seek backdating. A copy of the judgment was directed to be transcribed at public expense and provided to her.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 4 April 2001, Lord Justice Simon Brown refused the application for permission to appeal.
2. Queen’s Bench Division: On 27 November 2000, Crane J refused permission to apply for judicial review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision dated 20 July 1999.