The OSSCSC has contacted us to let us know that the DWP Adjudication and Constitutional Issues Branch recently flagged up a number of older decisions which they consider important and that these decisions have now been added to OSSCSC website/search engine.

The decisions are -

• CA 92 1992 – The Commissioner considers general principles which apply when considering the attention and supervision needs of children.
  
  
• CSIB 42 1996 – Descriptors are conclusions and reasons must be given for choosing a particular one - medical evidence is not the only relevant evidence. For sitting, an EMO observing a claimant sitting comfortably for 20 minutes is not inconsistent with finding that she could sit for only 30 minutes without having to move (7 points) and it was not recorded whether the claimant was sitting in a chair of the prescribed type. The guidance for EMOs on lifting and carrying is approved.
  
  
• CIB 1665 1997 – A tribunal should not rely solely on their own observation of the claimant
  
  
• CIB 381 2001 - Income - bankrupt - whether annuity which had vested in the trustee in bankruptcy was actual income - whether annuity notional income.
  
  
• CIS 5242 1995 - A change in legislation can be a change of circumstances / Payments to a fund or reserve for repairs and improvements to common parts can be payments of a service charge.
  
  
• CIS 14551 1996 - When considering whether new accommodation is more suited to the special needs of a disabled person, meeting those needs need not be the only reason for the move. The issue is the suitability of the accommodation and not the reasonableness of the acquisition. The suitability must be related to the accommodation itself and not the terms of the acquisition.
  
  
• CIS 514 1997 – Replacement of a heating system is not a repair
  
  
• CIS 20038 1997 – The claimant was residing with a person with whom he shared a kitchen, in circumstances where they lived in separate households but apparently did not make separate payments to the landlord
  
  
• CIS 754 1991 - Severe Disability Premium - dealing with the legislation as in forced between 1.100. 1990 and 11.11.1991 - decided prior to Bate v. CAO. In considering whether a person is a non-dependent (for the purposes of severe disability premium), a liability to make payments means a legal liability involving an intention on both sides to create such a liability. A person who lacks capacity cannot have such an intention but the particular claimant in this case, who suffered from Down's syndrome and had an appointee, was not regarded as having insufficient capacity. In the absence of capacity, the English law of restitution may be of less assistance to a claimant than the Scottish law of recompense. The position in Scotland is discussed by a Tribunal of Commissioners in R(IS) 17/94.
  
  
• CIS 1974 1998 – A charge levied for repairs to another building on the same estate may be a service charge. Guidance on the treatment of service charges is given
  
  
• CIS 1997 2002 – Where a person no longer falls within a prescribed category in Schedule 1B of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 the onus is on the Secretary of State to check that the claimant does not fall within any of the other prescribed categories before bringing the award to an end.
  
  
• CSJSA 261 1998 – The Commissioner gives guidance as to the relevance of journey time to the question of good cause for failure to apply for a vacancy and as to the length of time for which a disqualification from benefit should be imposed
  
  
• CJSA 1134 2003 – Whether a student loan paid (whether properly or otherwise) to a part-time student constitutes income in relation to income-based JSA
  
  
• CS 343 1994 – There was no breach of natural justice in not hearing from a potential witness present at the hearing, where the claimant failed to indicate to the tribunal that he wished to him to give evidence. Clear and convincing evidence is required before a Commissioner will go behind a record of proceedings and the mere assertion by the claimant will not be enough. The tribunal was entitled to find against the claimant despite the fact that it was alleged that he had been set up at the instigation of estranged members of the claimant's family