Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(IS) 4 01
File Number:	CIS 745 1999
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Mr R.J.C. Angus
Date Of Decision:	01/06/2000
Date Added:	26/03/2002
Main Category:	Earnings and other income
Main Subcategory:	Other income and payments
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Income - part of claimant's occupational pension paid to his former wife under an attachment of earnings order - whether "income" of the claimant The claimant had accepted a redundancy package which included a pension. He and his wife set up a business. They were later divorced. The claimant's wife continued to be employed in the business and the claimant arranged for his benefits under the pension scheme to be paid to her. Eventually the business had to be wound up and the claimant rescinded the instruction regarding the pension. The claimant's wife obtained a judgment against him part of which was enforced by an attachment of earnings order in terms of which £1,158.06 per month was deducted from the claimant's pension, the pension then being his only source of income. Having for some time claimed jobseeker's allowance the claimant made a claim for income support. The adjudication officer disallowed the claim on the basis that the occupational pension fell to be taken into account in the calculation of the claimant's entitlement. The claimant appealed to a social security appeal tribunal. The tribunal held that the pension in fact and in law belonged to the claimant, that payments from it still formed part of his income, that his debt to his ex-wife did not diminish his income, and that the pension was income for the purposes of calculating his entitlement to income support. The claimant appealed to the Commissioner. Held, allowing the appeal that: 1. it was not necessary to this decision to agree or disagree with the decision of the Commissioner in CIS/212/1989 (a case concerning the diversion of income to a trustee in bankruptcy); 2. notwithstanding the differences in the facts, the approach of the Court of Appeal in Leeves v. the Chief Adjudication Officer (now reported as R(IS) 5/99), namely that ordinary words must be given their ordinary meaning, was applicable to this case; 3. regulations 32, 40(4), and 42(4) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 all refer to payment of (as opposed to entitlement to) income; 4. the ordinary meaning of "income" is money paid regularly to the recipient or to his order but not money which is paid and which he cannot prevent from being paid directly to a third party; 5. the position remains the same following the amendment of regulation 42(4)(a) from 15 November 1999 by the addition of regulation 42(4)(a)(1a) since the payment of part of the claimant's occupational pension to the collecting officer does nothing for the claimant's support and so cannot be said to be made "in respect" of him.
Decision(s) to Download:	is4_01.doc