Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
In 1988 the appellant took out a mortgage in order to purchase her current home, with a loan of £32,000. She took out a second mortgage in 1997 with a loan of £40,000 and redeemed the previous mortgage. She took out a third mortgage in 2000 with a loan of £90,000 and redeemed the previous mortgage. She took out a fourth mortgage in 2003 with a loan of £93,295 and redeemed the previous mortgage. She took out a fifth mortgage in 2010 with a loan of £173,495, and again redeemed the previous mortgage.
The appellant appealed from this decision, but a tribunal disallowed her appeal. She appealed to the Social Security Commissioner. In an interim decision issued on 9 December 2015, I found that on a correct interpretation of the law the appellant fell within the definition of "disabled person" from 1 April 1996 to 7 April 2002, therefore potentially qualifying for the cost of certain repairs and improvements to be added to her housing costs. I allowed her appeal and set aside the decision of the appeal tribunal for the reasons given in my interim decision.
Having set aside the decision of the tribunal, rather than remit the appeal to a newly constituted tribunal, I directed further evidence with a view to making a decision on the appellant's entitlement to housing costs under Article 15(8)(a)(ii) of the Social Security (NI) Order 1998. The appellant submitted evidence on 7 January 2016. I gave the Department an opportunity to comment on the evidence and Mr Crilly duly responded on 9 February 2016. The appellant made further submissions in response on 26 April 2016.
On 10 June 2016, I issued a direction to the Department to make written observations under regulation 20(4) of the Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) Regulations (NI) 1999. In the light of the submissions received on 19 July 2016, I held an oral hearing on 27 September 2016.
The issue in dispute concerns the interpretation of paragraph 12 of Schedule 2 to the PC Regulations. This provides that:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.