e-mail Paul Lewis on paul@deadline.demon.co.uk
More than six thousand veterans who have been refused war pensions over the last two years could have their cases reviewed following a landmark decision by the High Court in October. The Secretary of State for Social Security Harriet Harman failed in her attempt to get the court to uphold strict new rules which have been imposed on anyone claiming a war disablement pension since May 1995. For more than two years the War Pensions Agency has refused to allow claims based solely on the account of the veteran. It has insisted on some evidence from the time that the incident which caused the disability actually happened. But Mr Justice Alliott ruled that the evidence of the disabled person could be accepted if he or she was 'credible' and he allowed the claim from 77-year-old D-Day veteran Cyril Bennett to proceed.
Mr Bennett was a driver with the RAF Tactical Field Ambulance. He landed on the French beaches during the D-Day invasion of 1944 and was doing his job taking the dead and wounded to makeshift field hospitals.
"I came out the back of the ambulance and the wind caught the back door, and they were heavy those doors, and the bolt on it came and caught me on the base of the spine. In those days of course you got up and got on with it. So no I didn’t report it then. We were so busy if you got knocked down you picked yourself up. I started feeling it about 20 years ago, I’d had some pain most of my life, but I had to retire early, 59 rather than 65. When I went for x-rays they said the 4th and 5th vertebrae were crushed."
Mr Bennett makes light of it, but as a result of the injury he has been in a wheelchair for the last few years and is looked after by his devoted wife of 58 years Peggy. When he applied for a war disablement pension two years ago he was examined by doctors who agreed he was in a bad way. But his claim was rejected because he had not reported the injury at the time and so there was no contemporary evidence that the incident which injured him had ever occurred. He appealed against the decision to refuse him a pension and the war pensions appeal tribunal accepted his story. It agreed that his injury was due to his service in the armed forces in 1944. But before his claim could be proceeded with, the Secretary of State appealed to the High Court against the Tribunal's decision. After the election, the new Secretary of State proceeded with the case. And it was there she lost on October 17.
Mr Bennett's case was the first test of new rules introduced in 1995 which made it far harder to claim a war disablement pension. These pensions are paid to people who have a disability now which was caused by their service in the armed forces at any time since 1914. The injury or disease does not have to be due to war or combat, as long as it is was caused - or made worse - by something that happened while the veteran was on duty.
The present dispute is over what evidence is needed to prove that the event in the armed forces actually happened. The standard of evidence had changed over the years but in late 1994 the Government asked its lawyers to look at the procedures carefully and make sure that the rules which govern war pension claims were being strictly followed. Just a few years earlier lawyers had advised that evidence from the person applying for a pension was enough as long as it seemed what they called 'trustworthy and safe'. But the new team of lawyers took a different view. They decided that the evidence of the person applying for the pension was not enough by itself. They said the regulations meant that some independent evidence from the time was necessary before a claim could be considered. This evidence could be in the form of an official report, an eye witness account, or a letter or diary entry written at the time. But something was needed or the claim would automatically fail.
Tom House, head of pensions at the Royal British Legion is convinced this change of policy was designed to stem the growth of claims for war pensions.
"I believe the change was made on financial grounds rather than the re-interpretation of Regulations. I now fear they'll change the rules rather than accept this judgement by Mr Justice Alliott. That will severely reduce the rights of ex-service personnel."
And he believes that Cyril Bennett's stoicism in the face of injury on the battlefield was commonplace in the last war.
"How do you expect, on the beaches at Anzio, you’re an ambulance driver and the Medical Officer is amputating limbs trying to save lives. Do you really go and report to him that you've hurt your back? No soldier would do that and if he did he'd get pretty short shrift from the MO I can tell you. And it's not just veterans of World War Two. I've served in Northern Ireland. If you were being stoned and you were hit and they still needed troops on the ground you went back. You didn’t go running off to the medical officer to report an injury that may have seemed minor at the time but may become serious later in life."
Cyril himself is delighted that he won.
"I don't feel hard done by. But if I hadn’t been there doing that job I could be walking now. So I would like a pension for it. Any money will help run the car, I have a disabled car and help with the housekeeping. I’m delighted we won in court and I hope it will help others too. A lot of them are worse off than me."
And Tom House says Mr Justice Alliott's decision is a major victory for war veterans.
"I don't mind a case being turned down if there's no proof but the tribunal believe his account. Remember they are three independent people, a lawyer, a doctor and someone of the same rank as the applicant and it has to be a unanimous decision. If they think the tale is true then it should be accepted as evidence. In this case Mr Justice Alliott came down on the side of common sense and I am thrilled."
The Department of Social Security is likely to be less pleased. The number of war pension claims has grown steadily for many years and around 330,000 are now in payment at a cost of more than £1.5 billion a year. As I have reported in Saga Magazine, several attempts have been made in the last few years to reduce the number of successful claims. The change in the rules of evidence was part of those efforts. The Department has confirmed that more than 6000 applications for war pensions have been turned down since the rules were changed in 1995. A spokesman told Saga Magazine "We are waiting for the text of the judgement. Until we see that we cannot say whether we will be re-examining them." He also confirmed that the High Court judgement was final and there could be no appeal against it.
The Royal British Legion will now be calling on the Government to re-examine all the cases that have been turned down since the rule change. And it should make it far easier for future claims. Within a few days of the judgement the Legion told Saga Magazine that "there is a new feeling at the tribunals. We are reaping the benefit of this already."
After that you will probably have to undergo further medical examinations to see how severe your disability is. If your disability is at least 20 per cent you will then either a weekly pension of between £21.44 and £107.20. If it is less than 20pc you will get a lump sum, normally around £6500.
People who believe they may be entitled to a war disablement pension because of an injury in the armed forces should now feel easier about claiming. The absence of any documentary proof will no longer stop a successful claim being made. As long as your story is clear and believable that will be enough to get your claim for a pension considered. But remember, to get a pension at all you must have a disability now that was caused or made worse by something that happened while you were in the armed forces.
December 1997
e-mail Paul Lewis on paul@deadline.demon.co.uk