Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number: R(IS)4/94
File Number: CIS 646 1991
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner: Dr D. G. Rice
Date Of Decision: 03/03/1993
Date Added: 28/06/2002
Main Category: Earnings and other income
Main Subcategory: Other income and payments
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes: Income - payment in lieu of concessionary coal - whether “voluntary” The claimant, whose late husband had been a miner, received a cash payment of £6.92 per week from the National Coal Board. This payment was in lieu of concessionary coal and was made pursuant to an agreement between British Coal and the National Union of Mineworkers. The adjudication officer decided that this income fell to be taken into account in full in the calculation of the claimant’s income support. The claimant appealed to a social security appeal tribunal, the point at issue being whether the weekly payment was “voluntary” and could therefore be disregarded. Upholding the adjudication officer’s decision the tribunal decided that the payment was not voluntary because it was legally enforceable. The claimant appealed to the social security Commissioner. The Commissioner decided that the tribunal’s decision was erroneous in point of law. The tribunal had reached the right conclusion on the basis of an incorrect interpretation of the law. Held that: 1. the question whether a payment of cash in lieu of concessionary coal of the type received by the claimant was “voluntary” was considered in the context of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 and the Community Charge Benefit (General) Regulations 1989 in R v. Doncaster Borough Council, ex parte Francis Alice Boulton and it was held there that such a payment was not voluntary; 2. in that judgement Laws J said that the word “voluntary” in the context of housing benefit and community charge benefit legislation denoted the obtaining or giving of something without anything being obtained in return; 3. the provision allowing for a partial disregard to apply to “voluntary” payments was not at all concerned with the question whether or not the payer had entered upon legal obligations; it was concerned with cases where a person or body, outside the state, had shouldered some part of the burden of providing relief to persons living in the kind of economic circumstances which will allow the payment of an income-related benefit, without receiving anything in return; 4. the national agreement (under which cash payments in lieu of concessionary coal are made) was entered into by British Coal in the interests of good labour relations so as to better secure the willing services of its employees. British Coal therefore made the agreement in the expectation of improved industrial relations and efficiency being obtained in return. This legitimate and proper purpose was far removed from the purpose of benevolence which lies behind the term “voluntary” in the regulations; 5. the payment in lieu of concessionary coal in this case was not voluntary. The principle enunciated by Laws J in R v. Doncaster Borough Council, ex parte Francis Alice Boulton in relation to the Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit Regulations applies equally to the interpretation of paragraph 15 of Schedule 9 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 198
Decision(s) to Download: Is04_94.doc Is04_94.doc