FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL SOCIAL ENTITLEMENT CHAMBER Held at Manchester on 10th December, 2013 Before Judge N Neary Tribunal Ref. SC946/12/09407 Appellant: Mr NI No Respondent: Local Authority Manchester City Council. DECISION NOTICE 1. The Council Tax Benefit appeal is allowed. 2. The decision made on 11.6.2012 is set aside. The tribunal finds that the claim submitted on 15.3.2012 is not defective. The tribunal is satisfied that the appellant supplied the information requested by the local authority on 3.4.2012. The local authority is to calculate wherever there is any entitlement to council tax benefit from the date of claim. Signed Tribunal Judge: Date: 10.12.13 Decision Notice issued to Appellant on: 10.12.13 Respondent on: 10.12.13 HBCTB 1 1211
Transcript
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
SOCIAL ENTITLEMENT CHAMBER
Held at Manchester on 10th December, 2013
Before Judge N Neary
Tribunal Ref. SC946/12/09407 Appellant: Mr
NI No
Respondent: Local Authority Manchester City Council.
DECISION NOTICE
1. The Council Tax Benefit appeal is allowed.
2. The decision made on 11.6.2012 is set aside.
The tribunal finds that the claim submitted on 15.3.2012 is not defective. The tribunal is satisfied that the appellant supplied the information requested by the local authority on 3.4.2012. The local authority is to calculate wherever there is any entitlement to council tax benefit from the date of claim.
Signed Tribunal Judge: Date: 10.12.13
Decision Notice issued to Appellant on: 10.12.13
Respondent on: 10.12.13
HBCTB 1 1211
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
SOCIAL ENTITLEMENT CHAMBER
Held at Manchester on 10/12/13
Before Judge N H Neary
Appellant: Mr Tribunal Ref
NI No
SC946/13/09407
Respondent: Manchester City Council
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
This statement is to be read together with the decision notice issued by the tribunal
1 This appeal concerns Mr claim for Council Tax Benefit (CTB) and is against a decision by Manchester City Council (the local authority) that his claim received on 15 March 2012 was not a full and proper claim and so was defective.
2 A chronology is set out in the Summary of Facts in the appeal papers and is not repeated in this Statement except where necessary by way of reference.
3 It appeared to the tribunal that the local authority and Mr had reached a position of stalemate, with the local authority demanding further information (or information in a different format) and Mr declining to provide it.
4 The information received by the local authority from Mr on 12 April 2012 including January and February payslips and some bank statements for his partner, Miss , had been scanned on to a computer and sent by e-mail by Mr (pages 45 to 46).
5 On 25 April the local authority informed him that it was unable to accept the information as he had scanned these documents in himself and he was asked to provide the originals by 4 May (pages 50 to 51).
6 There was further communication between the parties including an e-mail which Mr sent on 17 May 2012, stating that in the past the local authority had accepted documents from him by e-mail (page 62). After further correspondence Mr e-mailed the local authority on 2 June, stating that he had no intention of sending in any more evidence until he was confident that the local authority could manage the information already submitted (page 67).
7 Following this e-mail the local authority made the decision that the claim was defective.
ON/SR Page 1 10/03
Date of Hearing: 10/12/13
8 Regulation 69A of the CTB Regulations 2006 provides that a claim for CIS may be made by means of an electronic communication in accordance with Schedule 9. That Schedule includes general and evidential provisions concerning electronic claims.
9 Paragraph 4(1) in Part 3 of Schedule 9 provides that, among other information, any evidence which is delivered by means of an electronic communication shall be treated as having been delivered in the manner or form required by any provision of the Regulations on the day if certain conditions are satisfied.
10 Regulation 72 sets out details of the information which a person claiming CTB shall provide and Regulation 72(1) includes the words, "shall furnish such certificates, documents, information and evidence in connection with the claim or the award, or any question arising out of the claim or the award, as may reasonably be required by the relevant authority."
11 Mr pointed out that he had made previous claims for DT and had submitted information relating to those claims electronically which had been accepted by the local authority.
12 The tribunal noted the letter dated 13 July 2012 from the local authority to Mr (pages 76 to 80), which was in reply to a complaint he had made about the handling of his claim.
13 On page 78 the letters includes the statement, "Our records also show that reassessments made on your case subsequently were based on scanned payslips for March/April 2010 and November 2011. 1 can therefore understand why you might be puzzled about whether scanned payslips are acceptable or not."
14 The claim in this case was made by electronic communication. The question which the tribunal had to decide was what evidence and information in connection with the claim was reasonably required by the local authority.
15 Given that it had previously accepted evidence of pay by electronic means, the tribunal decided (bearing in mind the provisions of Regulation 72) that it was unreasonable of the local authority to require Mr to provide original payslips and that he had done what was required of him by providing copies by e-mail. Accordingly, the decision that his claim is defective is wrong and for this reason the tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the local authority to calculate whether there is any entitlement to CM from the date of claim.
The above is a statement of reasons for the Tribunal's decision, under rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008.
