Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Wilson

For section 1(1A)–(1B) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, benefit is claimed in respect of a person where the benefit, or a component of it, is defined or quantified by reference to that person. One partner’s housing benefit claim is ordinarily made in respect of the other partner because the couple affects the applicable amount and other calculations. This applies whether the tenancy is sole or joint and whether income support operates as a passport to housing benefit. It does not depend on the partner’s inclusion increasing the benefit. Section 1(1B)(b) also requires the person concerned to make an application for a national insurance number; information in another person’s claim form is insufficient.

Mr Wilson, a council tenant, renewed a housing benefit claim after marrying a Thai national who lived with him and lacked a national insurance number. The authority first treated him as a single person, then decided that he was not entitled to benefit because the statutory condition was not satisfied in relation to his wife. The Appeal Tribunal allowed his appeal. Commissioner Levenson dismissed the authority’s further appeal, holding that a partner barred from recourse to public funds was not a person in respect of whom benefit was claimed. The Secretary of State appealed. The central issues were whether Mrs Wilson fell within section 1(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, despite Mr Wilson’s income support, and whether she had made an application under section 1(1B)(b).

The appeal was allowed. The Commissioner had erred in law in holding that Mrs Wilson was not a person in respect of whom housing benefit was claimed.

1. The ordinary meaning of in respect of is that the benefit claimed is referable to a person because the benefit, or a component of it, is defined or quantified by reference to that person. The phrase is not equivalent to for the benefit of or on behalf of.
2. Under the housing benefit scheme in the Housing Benefit (Regulations) 1987, a partner is taken into account in calculating the applicable amount and other relevant matters. Either member of a couple may make the claim, irrespective of which member is liable for the rent. Accordingly, a claim by one member is made in respect of the other. This conclusion applies to sole and joint tenancies, and also where income support operates as a gateway to housing benefit. It is immaterial that including the partner does not increase the benefit payable in the particular case.
3. There was no statutory exception where the partner was prohibited from having recourse to public funds. The evidence showed that a national insurance number could be applied for and allocated without an intention to work or conflict with the relevant visa condition. Inclusion in the housing benefit calculation did not itself amount to recourse to public funds, and an indirect advantage from benefit paid to the claimant was not equivalent to such recourse. No material distinction between rent rebates and rent allowances was established.
4. Section 1(1B)(b) required Mrs Wilson herself to make an application for a national insurance number. Mr Wilson’s claim form did not constitute that application, and the subsequent telephone communications and solicitors’ letters made clear that no application was being made. There was therefore no realistic basis for a decision in his favour and no useful purpose in remitting the case.

The Commissioner’s decision was set aside. The appropriate form of order was left for further submissions if not agreed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2006] EWCA Civ 882, the Secretary of State’s appeal was allowed.
• Social Security Commissioner: Commissioner Levenson dismissed the authority’s appeal from the Appeal Tribunal and held that the partner was not a person in respect of whom housing benefit was claimed (CH 3801 2004).
• Appeal Tribunal: Allowed Mr Wilson’s appeal against Lincoln City Council’s decision.