Smith v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions

A life award of Disability Living Allowance is not immune from review. An adjudication officer may reconsider entitlement where the claimant expressly applies or information gives reasonable grounds for believing that entitlement should not continue. On appeal, a tribunal may consider a life award where the appeal expressly raises the issue or the information threshold is met.

Whether circumstances have changed is determined by continuous comparison between the evidence supporting the original award and the claimant’s circumstances at review. A tribunal need not identify each change separately if its reasons, read as a whole, show that comparison. An appellate court hearing only a point of law should dismiss, rather than remit, where the tribunal made findings supported by ample evidence and no error of law is established.

Smith v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions concerned the review of life awards of Disability Living Allowance. In 1994, the appellant received higher-rate mobility and lowest-rate care components for life. Following a 1999 review, the Appeal Tribunal changed the mobility award to a fixed three-year award and removed the care component. The Social Security Commissioner dismissed the appellant’s appeal.

The appellant argued that the review and tribunal decisions failed to comply with section 32 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, that there had been no relevant change of circumstances, and that the evidence did not justify altering the awards. The central issues were whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to reconsider a life award and whether its reasons and factual comparison disclosed an error of law.

The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Lord Justice Aldous delivered the judgment, with Lord Justice Mance and Mr Justice Newman agreeing. There was no order for costs, save for detailed assessment of the appellant’s costs.

1. Statutory jurisdiction. Part II of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 provides for reviews and appeals. Section 30 permitted the review to be initiated on the basis relied upon. Section 32(4) imposed restrictions on an adjudication officer reconsidering a component awarded for life. The tribunal was subject to a different restriction under section 33(6). It could consider entitlement to a life award where the appeal expressly raised that issue or information gave reasonable grounds for believing that the award should not continue. Entitlement had been expressly raised, and the tribunal was also entitled to consider the correctness of the award under section 33(6)(c).
2. Change of circumstances and reasons. The tribunal had carried out the required continuous comparison between the evidence supporting the 1994 award and the evidence available in 1999. Its reasons, read as a whole, showed what evidence had supported the original award, how the review arose, and how the appellant’s mobility and care needs had changed. It was unnecessary to identify the changed circumstances in a separate passage.
3. Evidence and disposal. The medical examination, the appellant’s answers, and his continuing work in television repair provided ample evidence that his care needs no longer justified an award and that his mobility award should be limited. The possible masking effect of steroids had been addressed because he had stopped taking them a month before examination and said that his joints were then better than average. The tribunal therefore committed no error of law. As the only possible conclusion on the evidence was that circumstances had changed, remittal would serve no purpose.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — appeal from the Social Security Commissioner dismissed. No error of law was established.
2. Social Security Commissioner — Commissioner Jacobs dismissed the appeal from the Appeal Tribunal.
3. Appeal Tribunal — the mobility life award was replaced by a fixed award from 2 March 1999 to 1 March 2002, and the care component was removed.