Social Welfare Type: Mortgage Interest Supplement

The Appellant and her husband were in receipt of Mortgage Interest Supplement (MIS) from August 2005 until 31^st January 2013. Following the breakdown of the Appellant’s marriage a barring order was issued against her former spouse.  The Appellant advised Community Welfare Services on the 31^st January 2013 that her husband no longer resided with her in the family home. As a result, the MIS claim was reassessed.

When reviewing the MIS claim the Designated Officer based their assessment on half the interest payable, rather than the full interest charged as the Appellant’s husband was named on the mortgage agreement and on the deeds of property.   Half the interest payable amounted to €56.18 per week.

As is the case in all MIS claims, the claimant and any non-dependants residing in the home are required to make a minimum contribution.  In this case the Appellant would have been assessed has having to pay at least €30 per week plus any means assessed, and her daughter would have been required to pay a further €30.   The total figure of €60 exceeded the amount of interest the Designated Officer deemed eligible under the MIS scheme, consequently no MIS was payable.

The actual interest payable on the property was confirmed to be €112.36 per week.

The Appellant appealed the decision with a submission prepared by CLM Northside.

The Appellant applied for Mortgage Interest Supplement (MIS) in late 2008 to assist her in making her mortgage repayments. The Health Service Executive (HSE) refused the claim on the following grounds; the house was the subject of a court action by the lending institution, the arrears were so substantial that it seemed the mortgage loan was not viable, the house was in joint ownership and any supplement would only be in respect of half of the loan and if the Appellant was to be awarded full ownership of the house through her court action, the HSE could not award a supplement for that increased mortgage interest liability. The Appellant appealed this decision. The Appeals Officer disallowed the appeal. The Appeals Officer refused the appeal on the grounds that at the time of entering into the mortgage agreement, the Appellant was unable to meet the repayments and in addition, due to the amount of the arrears, it was not reasonable to award the supplement.

The Appellant applied for Mortgage Interest Supplement (MIS) in 2008. The Appellant had re-mortgaged her home for €90,000 in 2006. Her claim for MIS was rejected on two grounds. Firstly, lack of evidence to support claim that the re-mortgage was in part for the purpose of home improvements and secondly the Appellant was self employed. Her application was refused as MIS could only be considered in relation to interest payable on Appellant’s home loan or loan in respect of bone fide repairs and improvements to her home. The Superintendent Community Welfare Officer (SCWO), having noted that the Appellant had previously made an application for MIS in 2003, when her mortgage was €20,400, made enquiries about her reasons for re-mortgaging. The Appellant stated that she had carried out some essential repairs/improvements to the house and had also utilised the money for business purposes. When she was asked to produce receipts or any documentary evidence of works carried out, the Appellant was unable to do so. In addition, the SCWO noted that the Appellant operated a small business for which part of the loan was utilised and this raised the question of assessment of means. At the oral hearing, the Appeals Officer was satisfied with the evidence provided supporting the client’s assertion that she was engaged in part time work. It followed that the Appellant was therefore not precluded from receiving MIS. The application for MIS was partially granted and the Appellant received an award of MIS on the interest attaching to the sum of €18,296 only.