Social Welfare Appeal G0128: One Parent Family Payment / Habitual Residence Condition.
Types of Social Welfare: Habitual Residence Condition, One-Parent Family Payment
Deciding Bodies: Appeals Officer, Chief Appeals Officer, Social Welfare Appeals Office
Title of Payment: One Parent Family Payment
Date of Final Decision: 31 May 2020
Keywords: Habitual Residence Condition, Right to Reside, Permission to Remain and Conditions, One Parent Family Payment, Section 318 Review.
Organisation who represented the Claimant: Irish Human Rights & Equality Commission
Casebase no: G0128
The applicant was a single mother of two children, who arrived in Ireland in 2013. She applied for refugee status and was granted permission-to-remain (Stamp 4) in the State in 2019, having resided in Ireland throughout. The applicant was originally enrolled in a course, but due to lack of funds and no access to the One Parent Scheme, was forced to leave the course. Her application for the One Parent Scheme was rejected in 2020.
The Appeal Officer’s decision to refuse a social welfare One-Parent Family Payment was under Section 246 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. This decision to refuse the applicant’s payment was made on the grounds that she had failed to satisfy the habitual-residence condition, as her presence in the State was not in accordance with her permission-to-remain.
Section 246 of the 2005 Act provides that it is a requirement for those applying for SWA and Child Benefit to be habitually resident in the State. Under section 246(4), a deciding officer or a designated person when determining whether a person is habitually resident in the State shall take into consideration all the circumstances of the case including, in particular, the following:
(a) the length and continuity of residence in the State or in any other particular country,
(b) the length and purpose of any absence from the State,
(c) the nature and pattern of the person’s employment,
(d) the person’s main centre of interest, and
(e) the future intentions of the person concerned as they appear from all the circumstances.
The applicant’s permission-to-remain was noted as being subject to certain conditions, which included:
- You will make every effort to gain employment and not be a burden on the State.
At the time of the application for payment, the applicant was not working.
The Applicant sought a further review before the Chief Appeals Officer, who under section 318 of the Act of 2005 may revise any decision of an Appeals Officer where it appears that the decision was erroneous by reason of some mistake having been made in relation to the law or the facts. In her submission, the applicant argued that the appeals officer “materially erred in fact” in finding that the conditions attached to the woman’s permission-to-remain prohibited her from accessing social welfare.
As the applicant was not working at the time she applied for the One-Parent Family Payment, the Chief Appeals Officer relied on the permission-to-remain condition that states applicants must make “every effort to gain employment, set up a business or pursue a profession, and not to be a burden on the State”.
The applicant subsequently obtained employment as a cleaner. The initial refusal decision relied on the permission-to-remain condition that she makes an effort to gain employment and the appeals officer was unaware the applicant became employed Maintaining that it is lawful to consider compliance with permission-to-remain conditions when assessing the habitual residence condition requirement, the Chief Appeals Officer overturned the refusal decision following a review of all the facts, considering the woman’s compliance with the permission-to-remain and the new information submitted in respect of her recent employment status.