Arnott v Melton Borough Council

Under the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992, regulation 63 permits an authority to require evidence reasonably needed to determine entitlement. A requirement for two forms of personal identity may be reasonable on a renewal claim and may be applied generally as part of an anti-fraud verification framework. Relevant considerations include the purpose of the requirement, the range of acceptable documents, the burden of compliance and the time allowed. Earlier acceptance of less evidence does not make a later requirement unreasonable where the claimant has a practical opportunity to comply.

The applicant sought permission to appeal from the Social Security Commissioner’s dismissal of his appeal from a Leicester appeal tribunal decision. The tribunal had upheld Melton Borough Council’s rejection of his renewed claim for council tax benefit because he had not supplied two forms of personal identity requested under the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992, regulation 63. He argued that the demand was unnecessary and unreasonable for a renewal claimant whose earlier claim had been accepted on less evidence. The central issue was whether the documents were reasonably required to determine entitlement.

Disposition

Lord Justice Simon Brown, giving the judgment of the court, refused the application for permission to appeal. There was no prospect of a successful appeal.

1. Regulation 63 of the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992 permits an appropriate authority to require certificates, documents, information and evidence reasonably needed to determine a claimant’s entitlement. The council was entitled to require enhanced proof of identity through two acceptable documents.
2. The reasonableness of the requirement was supported by its anti-fraud purpose and its general application to both new and renewal claims. The verification framework had followed extensive consultation and provided a wide, non-exclusive range of acceptable documents.
3. The requirement was not onerous. Regulation 63 provided a four-week period for production, capable of extension where necessary. The applicant had not argued that compliance was impossible or unduly burdensome. His previous provision of an unpaid utility bill did not require the council to accept the same evidence after the enhanced requirements had been explained.
4. The points raised had been properly dealt with by the Commissioner, who had dismissed the appeal from the Leicester appeal tribunal. The application was therefore refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused the application for permission to appeal.
2. Social Security Commissioner: on 24 June 2002, dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the Leicester appeal tribunal.
3. Leicester appeal tribunal: on 19 December 2001, refused the applicant’s appeal against the council’s rejection of his renewed council tax benefit claim.
4. Melton Borough Council: on 5 March 2001, rejected the renewed claim because the requested identity documents had not been supplied.