Eyeson v Milton Keynes Council

Eyeson v Milton Keynes Council

The High Court held that Paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 to the Tax Credits Act 1999 does not exclude prosecution under Section 112(1A) Social Security Administration Act 1992 for failure to notify changes in Working Families Tax Credit affecting Housing Benefit. However, the prosecution was brought outside the statutory...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Nancy Eyeson; Defendant: Milton Keynes Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / High Court Appeal From Magistrates' Court Conviction
Outcome
appeal allowed; conviction and sentence quashed
Legal Topics
Housing Benefit Fraud, Council Tax Benefit Fraud, Notification of Change of Circumstances, Statutory Time Limits for Prosecution
Criminal Law Social Security Law Housing Benefit Fraud Council Tax Benefit Fraud Notification of Change of Circumstances Statutory Time Limits for Prosecution

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nancy Eyeson

Claimant

Milton Keynes Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / High Court Appeal From Magistrates' Court Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 to the Tax Credits Act 1999 prevent prosecution under Section 112(1A) Social Security Administration Act 1992 for failure to notify changes in Working Families Tax Credit affecting Housing Benefit?
  2. 2 Were the informations laid within the statutory time limit under Section 116(2)(b) Social Security Administration Act 1992?
  3. 3 Was there sufficient evidence to convict the appellant of the offences charged?

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that Paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 to the Tax Credits Act 1999 does not exclude prosecution under Section 112(1A) Social Security Administration Act 1992 for failure to notify changes in Working Families Tax Credit affecting Housing Benefit. However, the prosecution was brought outside the statutory time limit, as all sufficient evidence was available to the authority by 10th February 2003 and proceedings were not commenced until 20th November 2003. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence quashed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; conviction and sentence quashed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence quashed
  • Costs paid in Magistrates' Court to be addressed in light of quashing