Turner v Metropolitan Borough Of Bury Council & Anor

A local authority determining a benefit claim may request any information it reasonably requires to decide the claim. The request is not confined to information appearing on the standard claim form. Where further financial or personal information is reasonably required, requiring bank statements and supporting evidence does not, without more, disclose an arguable error of law. The Court of Appeal’s permission jurisdiction focuses on whether the proposed appeal raises such an arguable error, rather than on wider grievances outside the decision under challenge.

Mrs Turner sought permission to appeal against Mr Justice Harrison’s refusal of permission to apply for judicial review and refusal of an extension of time. She disputed council tax liability orders and contended that Bury Metropolitan Borough Council had wrongly withheld housing benefit and council tax benefit. The Council required further information, including bank statements, evidence of income and confirmation of residence. The central issue was whether the Council had arguably erred in law by requiring that information before determining her benefit applications.

Lord Justice Pill refused permission to appeal. The application concerned only whether the Council had arguably erred in law in requiring further information; the applicant’s wider allegations about the liability orders, damage to her property, police conduct and alleged harassment were outside the issue before the court.

1. The relevant permission question was whether the proposed appeal disclosed an arguable error of law in the High Court’s decision. The court did not determine the applicant’s wider factual grievances or the underlying entitlement to benefit.
2. Regulation 63(1) of the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992 permitted the Council to request information connected with a claim which it reasonably required in order to determine that claim. The power was not limited to the information requested on the standard claim form.
3. The requests for six months’ bank statements, proof of income and confirmation of the applicant’s return to the property were capable of falling within that power. The applicant had supplied only a mini-statement covering approximately six weeks, which did not answer the request for fuller statements.
4. The court found no arguable error of law in the Council requiring further information before determining the applications. It also found no arguable error in the stated consequence under Regulation 66(b) of the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992 that failure to provide the requested information could relieve the authority of a legal duty to make a formal determination.
5. The court indicated that, had an arguable case existed, it would have granted the requested extension of time. The application for permission to appeal was dismissed.

• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Mr Justice Harrison refused permission to apply for judicial review and refused an extension of time. No citation is stated in the judgment.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 5 February 2002, the court refused permission to appeal and ordered that the application be dismissed: [2002] EWCA Civ 133.