Novitskaya v London Borough of Brent & Anor

For a claim under the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, the claimant need not name housing benefit expressly. The document, read in its context, must make clear that a claim for benefit is being made, and a reasonable official must be able to understand which benefit or benefits are sought, with or without further information. The defective-claim provisions require a generous, non-technical approach. They allow an incomplete or improperly presented claim to be perfected within the permitted period. A statement seeking backdating of benefits, made when a housing-benefit form was supplied and in circumstances showing that a claim was intended, was a defective housing-benefit claim. Its defects were cured by the later completed form, so the retrospective claim was timely.

Mrs Novitskaya sought retrospective housing benefit after being granted refugee status. She submitted a written statement on 10 June 2004 seeking backdating of benefits, but did not submit a completed housing-benefit form until 24 June 2004. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed her appeal because the completed form was outside the relevant periods, without deciding whether the 10 June statement was a defective claim.

The appeal concerned whether the statement constituted a claim under the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 despite not expressly naming housing benefit, and whether the completed form cured any defect. The central issue was what makes a valid or defective claim for housing benefit.

Appeal allowed. Lady Justice Arden gave the judgment, with which Lord Justice Elias and Lord Justice Mummery agreed.

1. Under regulations 2(1) and 72(1) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, a claim must be made in writing and must make clear that a claim for benefit is being made. That clarity may arise from the document itself or from its context. The court applied the contextual approach to documentary interpretation stated in Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896.
2. The benefit claimed need not be expressly named. It is sufficient that a reasonable official can understand, with or without further information, which benefits are being claimed. The defective-claim provisions show that Parliament did not intend an over-technical approach. The core point in R(S) 1/63 was accepted, but excessive reliance was not to be placed on its face-of-the-document formulation. The decision in CG 3844/2006 remained correct on its facts, although its more cautious implication was doubted.
3. The inquisitorial nature of benefits adjudication, confirmed in Kerr v Department for Social Development [2004] 4 All ER 385 and traced to R v Medical Appeal Tribunal (North Midland Region), ex p Hubble [1958] 2 All ER 374; [1958] 2 QB 228, supported a generous interpretation. The function of a claim may be to place the authority on notice that a claim for a particular benefit is being made.
4. The 10 June statement, read in context, sought the backdating of benefits and could not sensibly be understood as merely announcing a future claim. It therefore constituted a claim for housing benefit. Although incomplete and not made on the approved completed form, it was a defective claim within regulation 72(6) and (7).
5. Under regulation 72(8), the defective claim was treated as made initially when the properly completed form was received within four weeks. The form delivered on 24 June 2004 cured the defect, so the retrospective claim was made in time. The alternative argument concerning whether a further form had to be supplied was described as perilously technical, but it was unnecessary to decide it. Counsel were directed to draw up a minute of order.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Appeal allowed. The 10 June statement was a defective housing-benefit claim, cured by the completed form delivered on 24 June 2004: [2009] EWCA Civ 1260.
2. Social Security and Child Support Commissioners — Deputy Commissioner Mrs Ramsay dismissed the appeal because the completed claim was outside the relevant periods. No citation for that decision is stated in the judgment.