Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(TC)1/05
File Number:	CTC 3433 2003
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge C. Turnbull
Date Of Decision:	09/08/2004
Date Added:	27/08/2004
Main Category:	Revisions, supersessions and reviews
Main Subcategory:	late applications
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Revision - refusal to extend time for an application for revision - whether decision appealable - whether decision delays time running for appeal against original decision The claimant on 9 January 2002 claimed Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC). The Inland Revenue requested further information from him and stated (which the claimant denied) that this was not supplied. On 22 April the Revenue disallowed the claim on the ground that the claimant had not established that he satisfied the conditions of entitlement. The claimant denied receiving notification of this decision. On 11 September 2002 the claimant requested another WFTC claim form, which he subsequently completed and returned. The Revenue made an award of WFTC under this claim. At the same time the claimant submitted the information that had previously been requested and the Revenue treated this as an application for revision. On 25 November 2002 a decision was issued that purported to revise the decision of 22 April and award WFTC for the period 15 January 2002 to 15 July 2002. However the notification continued: "This award cannot be paid. This is because your request should have been made earlier." On 27 November 2002 the claimant appealed this decision. The Revenue's submission to the tribunal described the appeal as an in-time appeal against the decision of 25 November and contended that the issue that the tribunal needed to consider was whether the decision-maker had rightly refused to exercise the power in regulation 4 of the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999 to extend the one month time limit for an application for revision under regulation 3(1) of those Regulations. The tribunal apparently dealt with the case on that basis and rejected the appeal. The claimant appealed to a Commissioner. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. The decision of 25 November 2002 was in substance (and despite its wording) a decision not to revise the decision of 22 April 2002 (paragraph 11); 2. The decision purportedly under appeal to the tribunal was the decision of 22 April 2002: an appeal following a refusal to revise is an appeal against the original decision, not against the refusal to revise - R(IB) 2/04 at paragraph 188 applied (paragraph 12). Further, a refusal to accept a late application for revision is not itself a decision capable of being appealed to an appeal tribunal (paragraph 16); 3. On the footing (as found by the tribunal) that the claimant was duly notified of the decision of 22 April, the appeal against that decision was out of time. The time for appealing was not extended by regulation 31 of the Decisions and Appeals Regulations because, since the time for applying for revision had not in fact been extended by the Secretary of State under regulation 4, the application for revision had not been made under regulation 3(1) (paragraph 14); 4. There was no indication that either the Inland Revenue or a legally qualified panel member had considered using their powers to extend the time for appealing under regulation 32 of the Decisions and Appeals Regulations, and in the absence of such an extension there was no valid appeal before the tribunal and its decision was therefore erroneous in law (paragraphs 19, 20 and 23); 5. The tribunal could in no circumstances have had jurisdiction to consider whether the Secretary of State ought to have extended the time for applying for revision under regulation 4 : if the time for appealing the decision of 22 April had been extended, that appeal would have been bound to succeed. If not, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal at all (paragraphs 15 to 17). The Commissioner remitted the appeal with directions that it should first be considered by a legally qualified panel member for determination (a) under regulation 31(4) whether the decision of 22 April was in fact sent to the claimant (if not, the appeal was in time); and (b) if so, whether the claimant's time for appealing should be extended under regulation 32.
Decision(s) to Download:	R(TC) 1_05 bv.doc