The Appellant had been legally separated from his spouse since 1998. The Appellant and his spouse continued to reside in the same house but in separate areas. The Appellant’s Pre-Retirement Allowance was means tested on the basis that the Appellant was living with his former spouse as a family unit. As such, her earnings were considered in assessing the Appellant’s means. The deciding officer’s decision was appealed. The Appellant established to the satisfaction of the Appeals Officer that the marriage tie was broken. The Appellant’s means were assessed on their own and were calculated as being nil. The appeal was allowed.
Carer’s Allowance claim. The Appellant (the carer) cares for his wife who is in receipt of Disability Allowance.
The Appellant applied for Carer’s Allowance in September 2005 and was refused on the grounds that the evidence did not support his claim that his wife required “continual supervision” to meet her needs. The Appellant appealed the decision. The Appeal was disallowed.
The Appellant was housed with her children in local authority accommodation. The Appellant surrendered this accommodation and applied for Rent Supplement to pay for alternative private rented accommodation. The stated reasons for the surrender of her local authority tenancy were: (i) alleged anti-social behaviour in the area; and (ii) the care requirements of her ill and elderly parents. The Appellant originally vacated her local authority accommodation in 2005 and applied for and was refused Rent Supplement in February 2006. The Appellant’s application for Rent Supplement was refused and her appeals to the Health Service Executive (HSE) in the first instance and finally to the Social Welfare Appeals Office were both disallowed. The Appeals Officer was not satisfied that the Appellant had sufficient “good cause” for surrendering her Local Authority tenancy.
Applicant claimed basic Supplementary Welfare Allowance in June 2005 which was refused on the grounds that she was not habitually resident in this State. She filed an appeal and her status of habitual residency was re-considered by a Social Welfare Appeals Officer. The appeal was allowed.