Parkes v Department of Work and Pensions

A certificate under section 116 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 is conclusive evidence of the relevant date unless inaccurate on its face or fraudulent. The trial court cannot investigate the appropriateness of the Secretary of State’s delegation; that challenge must be brought by judicial review. The certification function may be delegated to a suitably accountable departmental lawyer. For local-authority benefits, the certificate must record the local authority’s own conclusion.

The claimants appealed by way of case stated from decisions of District Judge Gillespie in Coventry Magistrates’ Court on 10 November 2011. The District Judge had refused to stay criminal benefit-fraud proceedings as an abuse of process. The appeals concerned certificates under section 116 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, including delegation, the effect of admissions made during benefits interviews, and the form of the certificates.

1. Appeals dismissed. A valid certificate was conclusive evidence of the relevant date, subject to facial inaccuracy or fraud. The trial court could not examine the suitability of the delegation; any challenge to the antecedent delegation decision had to be brought by judicial review: Azam v Epping Forest District Council [2009] EWHC 3177 (Admin).

2. The Secretary of State could delegate the certification function under section 116(2)(a) and (b) to a departmental lawyer. Professional duties did not prevent delegation, and a lawyer was a suitable delegate. The Carltona principle supported that conclusion.

3. The certificates did not require an express statement that the signatory acted on behalf of the Secretary of State where the heading and wording made that clear.

4. The question when time began to run from admissions did not arise because the certificates were valid. In any event, section 116(2) focuses on evidence sufficient in the relevant authority’s opinion, rather than merely objectively sufficient evidence.

5. The Parkes local-authority certificate was defective because it recorded the Secretary of State’s opinion rather than Birmingham City Council’s conclusion under section 116(2)(b). The conviction could not be quashed because the point had not been taken below and the Case Stated did not address it. No order for costs was made.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Appeals by way of case stated from the Coventry Magistrates’ Court decisions of 10 November 2011. The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals.