Reg 14 on the date termination takes effect sets the date at the date of the suspension or "such earlier date on which entitlement to benefit ceases." but the empowering legislation doesn't seem to allow this. para 15 of sched 7 of the CSPSSA 2000 says "shall cease to be entitled to the benefit from a date not earlier than the date on which payments were suspended."

Anyone know where the "such earlier date" comes from and any view on whether sticking this in was ultra vires?

Hi Damian

Section 15 starts out “except in prescribed cases”. Prescribed means “prescribed by regulations under this schedule”. Does this then authorize regulation 14?

But for benefit to cease earlier than the date of suspension under regulation 14 the award would have to be revised or superseded under regulation 3 or 7. But that could only be done if there were grounds under those two regulations.

If the regulation is intra vires then regulation 14 has a wide scope but subject to the limits imposed by regulations 4-8 (revision and supersession). What do you think?

Regards
Paul

Thanks Paul, interesting idea. I had thought that the "prescribed cases or circumstances" could only be used to restrict but not expand when it was possible to terminate, such as when it is only a partial suspension but am not so sure now. Is "such earlier date on which entitlement ceases" too vague to be a prescribed case or circumstance?

It has arisen because of an authority using termination alone to go right back earlier than the date of suspension and take benefit away (without superseding or revising). In the commentary in Findlay et al they refer to the “earlier date” bit as puzzling since it would seem necessary to revise or supersede to end benefit earlier. The funny thing about this to me is that if there has already been a supersession making a termination decision from an earlier date would seem unnecessary.

The equivalent provisions for other benefits are in s23 of the SSA 1998 and reg18 of the SS&CS(D&A)regs and the wording is very similar but with what seems to me to be odd wording. In reg 18 it says “shall cease to be entitled to that benefit from the date on which payment was suspended except where entitlement to benefit ceases on an earlier date other than under this regulation.” I’m not sure what this is getting at – maybe supersession or revision?

I think your point about '"such earlier date on which entitlement ceases" too vague to be a prescribed case or circumstance' is a strong one.

So I think that you raising the issue of the possibility of the reg being ultra vires is valid annd well worth pursuing. Have you had any more thoughts?

The authority has now changed tack and decided that they didn't terminate, they superseded drawing adverse inferences.