The High Court has set aside an appeals officer’s decision refusing to revise a domiciliary care allowance (DCA) appeal in DZ’s case, directing that the revision application be reconsidered under the law. It rejected LL’s challenge to a separate refusal to revise her DCA appeal.
In a judgment delivered on 10 March 2021, Mr Justice Alexander Owens held that a claimant must have been entitled to a benefit when the claim was made. If eligibility arises only because circumstances later change, the claimant must make a new claim; the revision process cannot revive a rejected claim for that reason.
The court distinguished a later change in circumstances from later evidence about the claimant’s position at the time of the original claim. Under section 317(1)(a) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005, new evidence or facts may support revision if they show that the original appeal decision was wrong. The judgment said the reviewer must consider how that material affects the earlier decision, while keeping the question fixed on entitlement at the date of the claim.
LL had claimed DCA for her daughter in April 2015. Her appeal was refused in October 2016. In 2019, she sought revision relying on a psychiatrist’s letter describing her daughter’s ADHD symptoms and care needs. The appeals officer refused to revise the decision, concluding that the material did not establish entitlement at the time of the 2015 claim. The High Court found no legal error in that reasoning. It also refused to extend the time for LL’s judicial review, finding her explanation for the delay insufficient.
DZ claimed DCA for her son in March 2018. Her appeal was refused after an oral hearing in March 2019. A multidisciplinary report became available later that year and described an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis and care needs, including communication, self-care, social interaction and safety awareness. An appeals officer refused revision in January 2020.
The High Court found that the January letter may have applied the wrong test by focusing on the evidence available at the original appeal rather than considering whether the new material showed the child’s care requirements at the claim date had been greater than previously identified. It set that decision aside and remitted the revision application to an appeals officer for reconsideration in accordance with law. The court did not decide that DZ was entitled to DCA.
The court also extended the time for DZ to seek judicial review. It held that the Appeals Office’s correspondence in May and June 2020 made it reasonable to await a further response before going to court.