HC Deb 30 April 1923 vol 163 cc1000-1W

asked the Minister of Pensions if he has had his attention called to the case of James Aitken, late of the Seaforth Highlanders, No. 3/7664, and now residing at Cowie, Stirlingshire; is he aware that this man claimed a pension on 31st October, 1921; that the claim was disallowed on 31st March, 1922; that the notification of refusal clearly indicated that an appeal would be valid if taken within a period of 12 months; that an appeal was taken, and was successful, on 6th September, 1922; and, seeing that the Ministry has since refused to pay arrears of pension back to the date of the first application, on the ground that the appeal had not been made within a period of two months of his being erroneously refused pension, will he have the circumstances of this case re-examined?


A claimant is by Statute allowed a maximum period of 12 months in which to appeal against a decision on entitlement. Where an appeal against a decision of the Ministry is allowed, arrears are payable from the date at which the appeal is lodged, except that where the appeal is lodged within a reasonable time of the Ministry's notification to the man of their decision, that is within two months, arrears are payable as from the date of his claim. In the case referred to appeal was not lodged by the man until nearly six months after the Ministry's decision. I see no ground for modifying the general rule in this case.


asked the Minister of Pensions if he will look into the case of ex-Private S. Quick, No. 28,694, of 917, Bolton Road, Bradford, 2nd Lineolns, who enlisted 9th September, 1914, developed acute appendicitis, was operated upon, and discharged 28th September, 1917, with a 20 per cent. pension; if he is aware that, after reexamination in June, 1920, this was stopped., with the intimation that if disability should recur his case could be reopened (reference 4/M.Q./41, Leeds office); and that the disability having returned, with the necessity for a further operation, he cannot get his case reopened by the local pensions committee?


The appendicitis was at no time accepted as due to, but only as having been aggravated by, service and on examination by a medical board in June, 1920, it was found that the effects of service had passed away, and that there were, therefore, no grounds for any further award. I find, however, that the man was informed, in error, that if his disability recurred, his claim would be further considered. I am prepared to abide by promise then made and am instructing the regional officer accordingly.