Beltekian v Westminster City Council & Anor

A refusal by a local authority to revise an original housing benefit decision for official error is not an appealable decision where the statutory appeal provisions cover only the original or revised decision. Regulation 18(3) of the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001 refers to an application for revision expressly contemplated by regulation 4. Regulation 4(2) contains no such application mechanism. The court therefore followed the reasoning in R(IS)15/04. The separate question whether pre-existing housing benefit determinations could be reviewed after the new regime commenced was left undecided.

Westminster City Council refused Mr Beltekian housing benefit on 7 February 2000. A Housing Benefit Review Board upheld the refusal on 21 September 2000. Applications were subsequently made under the old review regime and the new revision and supersession regime introduced on 2 July 2001.

A Social Security Appeal Tribunal remitted the matter to the council. The Social Security Commissioner directed a rehearing to determine whether written representations seeking review had been made before 2 July 2001. On appeal, permission was granted on the question whether pre-existing determinations could be reviewed after that date. The appellant also argued that regulation 4(2) provided a route for revision for official error. The central issue was whether refusal of that revision request generated a right of appeal.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. The Social Security Commissioner’s direction for a rehearing was quashed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, subject to public funding and detailed assessment.
2. The appellant’s new argument could not succeed. Regulation 18(3) of the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001 concerns an application for revision made under regulation 4. The Tribunal of Commissioners’ decision in R(IS)15/04 correctly treated that wording as referring only to an application for which regulation 4 expressly provides. Regulation 4(1)(a) contemplates such an application, whereas regulation 4(2) contains no reference to an application.
3. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 gives a right of appeal in relation to a relevant decision made originally or revised under paragraph 3. Its language does not extend to a refusal by the council to revise a decision. No appeal therefore lay from the council’s refusal to entertain the proposed regulation 4(2) request.
4. The court did not decide whether the new regime preserved a power after 2 July 2001 to review a Housing Benefit Review Board determination made before that date. That issue had been left open in the earlier Tribunal of Commissioners authorities, including R(I)9/63, and the court expressed no view on it.
5. For completeness, the appellant’s complaint that the council had misrepresented the facts before the review board was treated as different from an official error in the council’s original decision. The statutory scheme provided different remedies for that complaint.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal and quashed the Commissioner’s direction for a rehearing: [2004] EWCA Civ 1784.
2. Social Security Commissioner: on 24 November 2003 upheld the council’s appeal from the Social Security Appeal Tribunal and directed a rehearing to determine whether written representations for review had been made before 2 July 2001.
3. Social Security Appeal Tribunal: on 6 November 2002 remitted the matter to the council to determine when the application had been made and whether revision or supersession was appropriate.
4. Chairman of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal: on 27 November 2001 dismissed the application under the transitional provisions.
5. Housing Benefit Review Board: on 21 September 2000 confirmed the council’s refusal of housing benefit.