Pridding v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Entitlement to invalid care allowance depends on the cared-for person satisfying the statutory definition of a severely disabled person. Under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, section 70(2) provides an exclusive definition which regulations cannot widen. Regulation 4(2) of the Social Security (Invalid Care Allowance) Regulations 1976 may deem qualifying care during temporary hospital treatment, but only while the cared-for person remains within that statutory definition. It cannot preserve invalid care allowance after attendance allowance has ceased following the permitted inpatient period. The appeal was allowed.

Mr Pridding received invalid care allowance for caring for his mother, who was entitled to attendance allowance. Following her hospital admissions, an adjudication officer found an overpayment, and a Social Security Appeal Tribunal upheld recovery of £493.50. The Social Security Commissioner accepted that an overpayment existed but reduced the recoverable amount to £211.50, holding that regulation 4(2) could extend entitlement during temporary inpatient treatment. The Secretary of State appealed. The central issue was whether regulation 4(2), made under section 70(8), could treat the mother as a severely disabled person after attendance allowance ceased under the hospital rules.

1. Extension of time. The appellant’s notice was substantially out of time under paragraph 21.5(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules Part 52 Practice Direction, and the delay was virtually unexplained. The court nevertheless granted an exceptional extension because the issue was of clear public importance, the respondent faced no financial prejudice, and undertakings protected his position and reasonable costs. Ward LJ strongly criticised the Department’s delay.
2. Statutory construction. Keene LJ gave the first judgment, with which Laws LJ and Ward LJ agreed. Section 70(1) establishes the basic conditions for invalid care allowance. Section 70(2) supplies the exclusive definition of a severely disabled person. Its wording is not made subject to section 70(8), and no provision authorises regulations to alter that definition.
3. Scope of the regulation-making power. Section 70(8) permits regulations to prescribe when a person is treated as engaged, or regularly and substantially engaged, in caring, as gainfully employed, or as receiving full-time education. It does not permit regulations to redefine severely disabled person.
4. Regulation 4. Regulation 4(1) addresses the carer’s regular and substantial engagement, including the 35-hour weekly requirement. Regulation 4(2) permits qualifying care to be deemed during a temporary interruption caused by inpatient treatment where its 14-week and 22-week conditions are satisfied. The deeming concerns the carer’s engagement, not the cared-for person’s statutory status.
5. Attendance allowance remained payable during the permitted inpatient period, so regulation 4(2) could operate during that period even though the carer was not providing 35 hours of actual care. Once attendance allowance ceased after the permitted period, however, the statutory definition in section 70(2) was no longer satisfied on these facts. Regulation 4(2) could not extend invalid care allowance beyond that point. The appeal was allowed and the Commissioner’s decision reversed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2002] EWCA Civ 306 — extension of time granted, appeal allowed, and the Commissioner’s decision reversed.
2. Social Security Commissioner (22 June 2000): accepted that an invalid care allowance overpayment had occurred but reduced the recoverable amount to £211.50.
3. Social Security Appeal Tribunal: upheld the adjudication officer’s decision that £493.50 was recoverable.