§ 52. Mr. WADDINGTONasked the Minister of Health when a claim for a widow's pension is lost either in postal transit or accidentally in his Department, and a second claim is not made until a date which disqualifies for the pension as from the time of death, what proof is required of the posting of the original claim to secure that no injustice is done to the widow?
§ Sir K. WOODThe nature of the proof required to establish that a claim was in fact posted will depend on the circumstances of the particular case, but, in the absence of the receipt of the form, a mere statement that it was posted could not ordinarily be regarded as sufficient to prevent the operation of the specific provision of Section 28 (1) of the Act with regard to late claims. If there were evidence to show that a claim had been received in my right hon. Friend's Department and subsequently lost, payment would be determined by the date when the original claim was made and not by the later date of the reconstructed claim.
§ Mr. WADDINGTONJs the hon. Gentleman aware that a widow had her claim prepared for her by an insurance agent within nine days of her husband's death and he has certified that he posted it within that time? The vicar of the parish has also certified that he witnessed the claim at the time. Why has the claim been refused and what further proof of posting was possible?
§ Sir K. WOODOnly three such eases have arisen in the whole administration of the Act. With regard to the case my hon. Friend has referred to, I have looked into the matter and the difficulty is that there is no corroboration. If he can get me some more evidence we shall be only too glad to admit the claim.
§ Colonel DAYDoes the hon. Gentleman think three witnesses are not sufficient to prove the claim?
§ Sir K. WOODI think if the hon. Member had a letter sent to him of some importance on the statement of some other person, he would want some further corroboration.
§ Colonel DAYIs there any proof in the hon. Gentleman's office that the letter did not arrive?