The Appellant’s One Parent Family Payment was disallowed on the 9th February 2011. The Appellant re-applied for the One Parent Family Payment on the 21st February 2012. This was refused as she was employed under a Community Employment Scheme and, due to a recent change in the law, it was no longer permissible to receive payments from a CE scheme and the One Parent Family Payment simultaneously. The Appellant appealed on the 27th February 2012 on the grounds that she had been employed under the CE scheme since 2010 and therefore the legislative changes in 2012 did not apply to her circumstances. This appeal was disallowed by way of a summary decision on the 21st September 2012. A review of the decision was sought under section 318 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 on the grounds that the Appeals Officer had made a mistake in the law. This review under Section 318 was successful and the Appellant was awarded arrears of payment from February 2012 to June 2013 which amounted to €13,603.80.
The Appellant, a non-EU national, made an application for Child Benefit in June 2011. The application was refused on the grounds that the Appellant was not lawfully resident in the State and therefore could not satisfy the Habitual Residence Condition. This decision was appealed on the grounds that the Appellant derived a right of residence from her son, an Irish and EU citizen, under Articles 20 and 21 TFEU as per the European Court of Justice in Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’empoi.
The appeal was partially allowed and the Appellant was deemed entitled to Child Benefit from the 1st of December 2006.
The Appellant was subsequently successful in her applications for Rent Supplement and One Parent Family Payment and was awarded arrears of payments dating back to 2006 which amounted to approximately €16,000.
The Appellant was refused Jobseekers Allowance (JA) on the grounds that he had not shown how he maintained his household and met his financial commitments prior to making his claim for Jobseekers Allowance. In addition, the Deciding Officer (DO) was of the opinion that the Appellant had not made consistent efforts to obtain suitable employment. A revised decision was requested under S.317 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. The appeal was disallowed on the basis that Appellant had not disclosed his means at the time of his application and the Appeals Officer (AO) was satisfied that the DO was correct in his findings that the Appellant was not genuinely seeking employment.
This case relates to the Appellant’s entitlement to Jobseekers Allowance which was terminated. The Deciding Officer (DO) considered that the Appellant was not available for work but staying at home to mind his children. This decision was appealed on the grounds that the Appellant was in fact looking for work and evidence was provided to that effect. The appeal was allowed by way of summary decision.
This case deals with a refusal of Jobseekers Allowance on the basis that the Appellant’s means were in excess of the weekly statutory limit. In this case the means were derived from two properties. This case is also linked with case report G0039(1).
The decision was appealed on the grounds that valuation of the properties was too high and it followed that the means figure was incorrect. Initially the appeal was refused; however, upon receipt of documentation proving the overvaluation, the Appellant’s appeal was allowed under Section 317 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. Please see report G0039(1) for the outcome of the case on appeal under Section 317.
The Appellant applied for Guardians Payment (Contributory) in respect of her grandson after his mother left the State. This was refused on the basis that the mother’s absence was only temporary and therefore the child could not be considered an “orphan” for the purpose of the legislation. An Appeals Officer disallowed the appeal by way of summary decision. NCL&MC sought a review of the decision under Section 318 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005.
This case relates to an application for Disablement Benefit. The Appellant’s level of disablement was initially assessed at 7%. In 2009, it was reassessed at 1%. This decision was appealed. On appeal, the Appeals Officer (AO) found the degree of disablement to be 3%. In 2011, NCLC requested a revision of this decision under section 317 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 submitting that the decision of the AO was erroneous in light of new evidence. In 2012, the AO revised his decision, and the Appellant’s level of disablement was found to be 6%.