You are here: Home >> Case Studies >> Family >> One Parent Family Payment

One Parent Family Payment Case 11

Question At Issue:

Cohabitation.

Background:

The appellant’s entitlement was reviewed in light of a newspaper report of a civil action she had taken against her former partner for a portion of the equity of a house which they had shared. Following investigation, a revised decision was made in relation to her entitlement to payment during a period between 1982 and 1999. The Deciding Officer determined that she was not entitled to payment during the period in question on grounds of cohabitation. As a consequence an overpayment of some €78,000 was assessed.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant attended, accompanied by her daughter. She was represented by a solicitor and by counsel. The two Social Welfare Inspectors involved in the case attended at the request of the Appeals Officer, as did the Deciding Officer.

The Appeals Officer outlined the question at issue and referred to her solicitor’s written submission on the appellant’s behalf. He advised that no specific grounds of appeal had been put forward and explained that there was a statutory obligation to outline such grounds of appeal as the Deciding Officer was required to comment on an appellant’s contentions before a case was submitted to the Chief Appeals Officer. The appellant’s legal representatives apologised in this regard. The Appeals Officer advised that he had decided not to call as a witness the person with whom the appellant was alleged to have cohabited as he wanted to avoid any possible confrontation. He noted that a statement made by that person to the Social Welfare Inspector was on the appellant’s file and he advised that it would be referred to, as appropriate, during the hearing.

The Social Welfare Inspector outlined details of her investigation of the case. She referred to the two cautioned statements made by the appellant, as set out in the documents on file. She reported that she had put to the appellant the allegation that she had made false declarations for the purpose of receiving a social welfare payment on grounds that she and (person named) had been living together as man and wife. The Social Welfare Inspector reported that the appellant, in response, had made a statement in which she referred to difficulties she had encountered in relation to drinking, gambling and drug abuse by the person concerned. She reported that the appellant had denied ever having been in a proper relationship with that person and had told her that she had simply shared a house with him, as nothing else was available. She said that the appellant had stated she had done the best she could, in all the circumstances, for the sake of their daughter.

Counsel for the appellant sought to clarify the details of the cautioned interviews. He asked whether the appellant had been questioned on those points outlined in the Guidelines in relation to cohabitation, including finances; co-residence; sexual relationship; household duties; ownership of property; arrangements for child rearing; whether the relationship was stable, and if the parties involved were known as a couple. In reply, the Inspector said that the details of the cautioned statements were as outlined in the documents on file. She conceded that she had not specifically dealt with all of the criteria outlined in the Guidelines in assessing cohabitation but asserted that she had addressed the major issues, in relation to co-residence and ownership of the various properties in which the appellant and (person named) had lived.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the relationship at issue was a very volatile one. He argued that the appellant, while admitting to cohabitation for specific periods in 1987, 1996 and 1998, was essentially co-resident, with separate living and sleeping arrangements in the various houses and flats in which she and (person named) had shared over the years. He stated that she had not owned any property during the period 1982 to 1999. He submitted that the appellant had volunteered information in Court about her social welfare payment. The appellant stated that she had sought a barring order in 1998/99 but had been refused, as her name was not on the deeds of the house. She reported that she had, however, been granted a protection order.

The Deciding Officer referred to the lack of any grounds of appeal, arguing that this placed her at a disadvantage. She stated that she considered that the appellant had presented a different scenario at the oral hearing to the one she had put forward in Court. She referred to the Guidelines on cohabitation and said that, in making her decision, she had not relied solely on the main issue of co-residence. She said that she had taken into account a number of factors, including the cautioned statements made to the Inspector, details of the Court action the appellant had taken against her former partner and, in that context, her sworn evidence that she had continued to claim One Parent Family Payment during the period at issue. In this regard, she referred to the appellant’s admission of co-residence and to one of cohabitation by (person named). She said that she had also taken account of the appellant’s statements in Court regarding shared finances and contributions to household bills, as well as to money contributed by her parents towards the cost of purchasing and renovating a particular house. She argued that there was a proven relationship in that the couple had a daughter. She stated that the appellant had changed address on numerous occasions and had failed to notify the Department, in line with requirements for continued receipt of payment. She said that there had been difficulties in carrying out reviews of the appellant’s claim, as it had been difficult to locate her. In conclusion, she said that it had been accepted by the Court that the appellant had cohabited and had shared an interest in the various properties at issue in the case.

In response, counsel submitted that the Deciding Officer had referred to Court proceedings and sworn evidence, as reported in the newspapers. He argued that such reports did not reflect what actually transpired and that transcripts of the Court hearings should have been sought; if these were not available, the solicitors on both sides should have been contacted for notes on their version of events. The Deciding Officer said that she had sought transcripts but without success. She argued that her decision had not been made on the basis of newspaper reports alone but had taken account of the cautioned statements made to the Social Welfare Inspectors and to the other aspects of their investigation of the case. She stated that she considered it relevant that neither party had denied the content of the newspaper reports when interviewed by Social Welfare Inspectors. Counsel argued that the statements made by the appellant and her former partner were not the same, and contended that the Court had not accepted that the evidence of (person named) was credible. He argued that the Court action related to the question of the appellant’s beneficial interest in the various properties over the years and that the proceedings and tests used were not the same as those applied in establishing cohabitation. In conclusion, he submitted that the appellant, while admitting co-residence, denied cohabitation.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer noted that the hearing had been lengthy, detailed, and had addressed complex issues. In a detailed determination (summarised here), he assessed the contentions advanced by the Deciding Officer in support of her decision, the details of the investigation outlined by the Social Welfare Inspectors, the arguments advanced by the appellant’s counsel and the appellant’s own testimony, as well as the documentary evidence in the case. He accepted that it had been established that the appellant’s relationship with her former partner had been a volatile one. He examined closely the question as to the Social Welfare Inspectors and the Deciding Officer having taken account of the newspaper reports of the appellant’s civil action and concluded that they were entitled to do so. He was satisfied that the reports did not prejudice the Deciding Officer’s decision in any way. He considered that while it might have been more appropriate for the Department of Social and Family Affairs to have addressed all aspects of its own Guidelines on cohabitation, he was satisfied that co-residence would embrace a lot of the criteria used in establishing cohabitation. In this regard, he was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence for him to accept that the appellant was cohabiting during the period at issue. He was satisfied, on the weight of evidence, that the appellant and (person named) were living together as husband and wife during the period from 1982 to 1999.

Outcome:

Appeal disallowed.

End of Document