Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(H)8/05
File Number:	CH 1855 2003
Appellant:	Beltekian v Westminster City Council and another [2004] EWCA Civ 1784
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge D. Williams
Date Of Decision:	24/11/2003
Date Added:	15/12/2004
Main Category:	Revisions, supersessions and reviews
Main Subcategory:	official error
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Revision on the ground of official error - whether right of appeal against refusal to revise In September 2000 a housing benefit review board (HBRB) upheld a determination of the local authority refusing the claimant's claim for housing benefit. In December 2000 the claimant wrote a letter requesting that the HBRB decision be set aside pursuant to regulation 86 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987. In July 2001 a new regime came into effect and the claimant's application was considered by an appeal tribunal, which dismissed it. The claimant then requested a review of the HBRB's decision under regulation 79(1) of the revoked 1987 Regulations on the ground that the decision was based on a mistake as to a material fact and, when that was refused, for a supersession under the new regime on the same ground. The authority refused this request, on the ground that supersession did not operate retrospectively and could not therefore assist the claimant, who had left the tenancy in issue in July 2001. Revision operated retrospectively, but was not possible, except in case of official error, where more than 13 months had passed since the decision in issue. The claimant appealed against the refusal of supersession to another tribunal, and then told the tribunal that he had made a request before July 2001 for a review of the HBRB decision, which the authority had not determined. The tribunal referred the case back to the authority, which then appealed to the Commissioner. The Commissioner referred the case back to a tribunal with directions to make findings as to whether the claimant had made written representations as required by regulation 79(2) of the 1987 Regulations. The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal. Before the Court of Appeal all the preceding arguments were abandoned and with the agreement of the appellant a new argument put forward that the original determination of the authority should be revised on the ground of official error. Held, dismissing the appeal, that: The legislation does not provide a right of appeal against a refusal to revise on the ground of official error (following the decision of the Tribunal of Commissioners in R(IS) 15/04) (paragraphs 10 to 13). The Court quashed the Commissioner's direction for a rehearing.
Decision(s) to Download:	R(H) 08_05 bv.doc