Social Welfare Type: Family Income Supplement

This case concerns a father of two children who applied for Family Income Supplement (FIS) on 5th August 2013. The Appellant does not live with the other parent, nor does he reside with his children. He maintains his children by way of monthly maintenance payments of €450.
A Deciding Officer refused the Appellant’s claim on 20th August 2013 for the reason that he was not maintaining his former spouse/partner, and therefore could not be regarded as falling within the statutory definition of a ‘family’ for FIS purposes.
The Appellant appealed this decision. On 21st July 2014 an Appeals Officer disallowed his appeal by way of a summary decision; that is, without an oral hearing. The Appeals Officer rejected the Appeal on the same grounds that the Deciding Officer had disallowed the claim in the first instance.
On 29th May 2015 Dublin City Centre Citizens Information Service (CIS), on behalf of the Appellant, requested a review of the Appeals Officer’s decision pursuant to s. 318 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 (as amended). The CIS asserted that the Appeals Officer had erred in his interpretation of the primary legislation, and had not applied the relevant regulatory provisions in this case.
On 29th June 2015, the Chief Appeals Officer revised the decision of the Appeals Officer and allowed the appeal.
Reference should be made to Case No: G0064 on casebase. That case concerns the same question of statutory interpretation and the Appeal was allowed.

This case concerns a father of two children who applied for Family Income Supplement (FIS) on 17 October 2012. The Appellant does not live with the other parent, nor does he reside with his children. He maintains his children by way of monthly maintenance payments of €260. The children’s mother is not in receipt of a social welfare payment other than Child Benefit. The Deciding Officer refused the Appellant’s claim for FIS on the 24 October 2012 on the basis that he could not qualify for FIS unless he was wholly or mainly maintaining his spouse and children; or, alternatively, his children must be living with him the majority of the time.
Sligo MABS, on behalf of the Appellant, appealed this decision on 8 November 2012. On 3 April 2014, an oral hearing was held. On 9 June 2014 the Appeals Office issued its decision disallowing the appeal on the grounds that the Appellant’s circumstances did not fall within the statutory definition of a “family” as provided by s.227 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005 (as amended) -“the Act”, and that Article 13 of the Social Welfare (Consolidated Claims, Payments and Control) Regulations 2007, S.I. 142 of 2007, – “the Regulations”, which refer to the “normal residence” of a child/ren, did not apply in this case.
On 26 August 2014 the Appellant requested a review by the Chief Appeals Officer of the Appeals Officer’s decision in accordance with s.318 of the Act, submitting that the Appeals Officer had erred in law, that the Appellant’s circumstances were in fact consistent with the meaning of “family” as provided by s.227 of the Act, and that the “normal residence” of his children should be decided in accordance with Article 13 of the Regulations.
The Appeals Officer subsequently reviewed his decision and decided to allow the appeal on 10 November 2014. The Appeals Officer accepted that the Appellant’s circumstances were in fact consistent with the statutory definition of a “family” for the purpose of receiving FIS and that Article 13 of the Regulations did apply in this case. See also Case Number G0073, which was decided by the Chief Appeals Officer on 29/06/2015.
Casebase

The Applicant, a British citizen, moved to Ireland from the UK in 2015 with his wife, a third country national, and their eight children.

He applied for Family Income Supplement in May 2017. In June 2017, his application was refused on the basis that his employment was not genuine. He appealed this decision, but it was returned to the Department for review. A social welfare investigation concluded that his employment was fraudulent. On 1 January 2018, Family Income Supplement was reclassified as Working Family Payment.

In April 2018, the Applicant was made redundant. The Department’s negative decision was affirmed on review and then, following an oral hearing, affirmed on appeal. The Appeals Officer found that the Applicant had not produced sufficient documentary evidence of his full-time remunerative employment.

In July 2018, the Applicant sought a review of the decision of the Appeals Officer under section 318 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 by the Chief Appeals Officer (CAO). On the Applicant’s behalf, CLM submitted that the manner in which the Applicant’s claim for WFP had been investigated by the Department was unfair, arguing that the inspector had placed undue weight on the visits that he had made to the Applicant’s place of work where he had not directly observed the Applicant working. CLM noted that, on one of these visits, the Applicant was present. On occasions when the inspector had concluded that the Applicant was not present, he had only walked past the Applicant’s place of employment. CLM further submitted that at the meeting held between the inspector and the Applicant, the inspector had never raised his concerns with the Applicant. CLM also submitted that the inspector’s conclusion was inconsistent with documentary evidence provided by the Applicant he was in full-time remunerative employment, and that the Applicant could not be held responsible for a failure to produce evidence of his employment after he had ceased to be employed by the business in question in April 2018.

The CAO found that the scope of the appeal under section 318 was confined to the decision of the Appeals Officer and could not look into the investigation concluded by the social welfare inspector. She therefore upheld the decision of the Appeals Officer on the basis that there had been no error in law.

In January 2019, the Applicant issued judicial review proceedings seeking to quash the decisions of the Appeals Officer and the CAO. These proceedings were adjourned to facilitate consideration of an appeal to the CAO under section 317.

This case relates to an application by the Appellant for Family Income Supplement.  The appellant had been employed and was awarded FIS in August 2012. This payment was renewed for 52 week periods in accordance with governing legislation and on 6 August 2015 a renewal for a further 52 weeks was approved.  On 16 October 2015 the appellant lost his job. He applied for Jobseekers Benefit which he received.  He then secured a new job on 9 November 2015 and made a new application for FIS in respect of his new employment.

The Appellant’s application was refused. The Deciding Officer (DO) considered that the appellants’ previous FIS claim was still in existence: “FIS is a 52 week payment so once it is approved the rate remains the same for the 52 weeks…Your current FIS claim is due to expire on 24/08/2016.”

The Appellant sought help from MABS who requested that the Deciding Officer review and revise her decision on the grounds that the DO had effectively linked two separate FIS claims. The DO wrote to MABs on 6 January 2016 reaffirming her decision. On 12 January 2016, the Appellant appealed the DO’s decision to the Social Welfare Appeals Office (SWAO) on the grounds that as his entitlement to FIS ceased when his employment ended, his new application should have been assessed as an entirely new claim.

By way of summary decision dated 22 March 2016 the Appeals Officer denied the appeal on the basis that the appellant’s claim for renewal of his FIS payment in August 2015, in respect of his former job, was connected to his application for FIS in relation to his employment in November therefore once awarded, the FIS rate payable remains the same for the 52 week period so the appellant would have to wait until August 2016 to secure an increase on his payment.

On 1 September 2016 Cork MABS requested a review of the Appeals Officer’s decision in accordance with section 318 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005 as amended on the basis that the Appeals Officer erred in law and in fact in failing to consider the appellant’s new application for FIS in November 2015.

This case concerns a father of one child who applied for Family Income Supplement (FIS) in April 2015. The Appellant does not live with the other parent, nor does he reside with his child. He maintains his child by way of two monthly maintenance payments of €150 (€69.23 weekly).

A Deciding Officer refused the Appellant’s claim on 27^th April 2015 for the reason that he did not have a child normally residing with him, nor was he “wholly or mainly” maintaining the other parent.

In May 2015, Charleville & District MABS appealed this decision on behalf of the Appellant. On 25th August 2015 an Appeals Officer disallowed the appeal by way of a summary decision; that is, without an oral hearing.  The Appeals Officer rejected the Appeal on the grounds that the Appellant could not be regarded as “wholly or mainly” maintaining his family as required by the statutory provisions governing the award of FIS.

On receipt of this decision, MABS made a Freedom of Information request seeking all records relating to the reasoning and decision of the Appeals Officer. On receipt of these records, MABS made a submission to the Chief Appeals Officer requesting a review of the Appeals Officer’s decision pursuant to s. 318 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 (as amended) – “the Act”, on the grounds that the Appeals Officer had erred in law.  MABS asserted that as the Appellant did not have a “spouse” within the meaning of Social Welfare Law, his claim fell to be decided in accordance with s. 3 and s. 227 of the Act, and Article 13(6) of the Social Welfare (Consolidated Claims, Payments and Control) Regulations 2007 (as amended) – “the Regulations”, S.I. 142 of 2007.  MABS asserted the Appeals Officer had erred in her interpretation of the primary legislation, and that she had failed to apply the relevant regulatory provisions; namely, the Appellant is required to demonstrate that he is substantially maintaining his child.  MABS asserted that the Appellant had met this condition and was therefore eligible for FIS.

On 20^th November 2015, the Chief Appeals Officer revised the decision of the Appeals Officer and allowed the appeal.

Reference should be made to Case No: G0064 and G0073 on casebase.  These cases concern the same question of statutory interpretation. Both appeals were allowed.