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

One Parent Family Payment Case 13

Question At Issue:

Whether appellant’s claim to one parent family payment should be disallowed on the grounds that she was co-habiting giving rise to an overpayment.

Background:

The appellant claimed and received the maximum rate of one parent family payment since 1991. Her claim was reviewed in 2001 and again in 2005. The Social Welfare Inspector who carried out the review reported that the appellant held an SSIA account after initially denying she had such an account. The issue of co-habitation also arose as the appellant’s former partner’s name appeared on the rent assessment. When asked the reason for that, the appellant replied that she had asked the Council to have his name removed but, as he failed to provide them with proof of a new address, the amount of rent remained unchanged. When questioned as to why she continued to pay an excessive amount of rent, she did not reply. She denied any form of employment but stated that she had done some voluntary work in respect of which she was asked to produce documentary evidence.

The Social Welfare Inspector concluded that on the grounds that the appellant had failed to prove that co-habitation was not an issue she no longer satisfied the conditions for receipt of one parent family payment. Before giving a decision on the case, the deciding officer sought details of the tenancy from the Council and was informed that the appellant’s former partner’s name was included on the rent assessment but not on the tenancy agreement. The appellant had submitted evidence that he was no longer resident at the address but the evidence was deemed insufficient by the Council and the rent remained unchanged.

The deciding officer wrote to the appellant outlining the case before her for decision and inviting any comments before making a decision. The appellant failed to reply. Consequently, the claim was disallowed and an overpayment assessed against the appellant.

A letter of appeal was received from the appellant’s solicitors contending that the deciding officer had failed to take account of all the circumstances and evidence in making her decision. On foot of that letter, the deciding officer referred the case again for review by the Social Welfare Inspector. The Inspector reported that she hand delivered a letter to the appellant requesting her to provide a detailed SSIA account statement and a letter confirming her voluntary work. A letter regarding the voluntary work and birth certificates in respect the appellant’s two older children were received. It transpired that the birth certificates had recently been amended to include her former partner as the putative father of the two children and giving them his surname. The appellant failed to furnish the detailed SSIA account statement requested.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant attended accompanied by her solicitor. The deciding officer and two Social Welfare Inspectors were also in attendance.

In relation to the tenancy rent assessment, the appellant stated that she had sent a letter to the Council in 2001 informing them that her former partner had moved out. She said that he had only resided with her for 4 to 6 weeks following the birth of their daughter. She said that she provided the Council with a copy of her daughter’s birth certificate which gave his address as the same as hers and, therefore, he was included on the rent assessment. She said that the Council had sought proof that he had moved out, such as a utility bill for another address, but he was living in rented accommodation and was unable to supply same. She said that she had contacted the Council on numerous occasions to have the rent reduced, but to no avail. The appellant was asked if he could have produced other evidence acceptable to the Council, such as a bank statement or driver’s licence, but she didn't know the situation in that regard.

In relation to the appellant’s SSIA account, the deciding officer contended that the appellant had failed to furnish full details of the account as requested on a number of occasions. As a result, the account details could not be established such as whose name or names were on the account. The appellant’s solicitor indicated that he had responded to a request for details of the SSIA account. The deciding officer contended that what had been supplied, namely, an account balance, was not what had been asked for. The solicitor said that if what had been supplied was not what was required he would have expected the Department to follow it up with further correspondence. The appellant confirmed that she held a SSIA account in her own name. Her solicitor confirmed that such accounts cannot be held in joint names. It was noted that the appellant’s bank account indicated a monthly payment of €200 into the SSIA account. She said she was saving the money for her daughter. She said she had been receiving between €25 and €50 per week maintenance from her former partner.

In relation to the amended birth certificates, the appellant said that her former partner was not the natural father of her two eldest children. His name was included on the respective birth certificates as he had agreed that he would take on responsibility for the three children and she wanted all her children to have the same surname. The appellant admitted that her partner moved back in with her for 4 to 6 weeks in 2000 and she did not inform the Department at the time. The relationship didn’t work out and the appellant decided that he should leave. She said that he has not lived with her since then.

Appellant was questioned as to why she returned her payment book in 2005 stating that she had secured employment when departmental records showed that it was some months later before she actually commenced employment. She replied that her second child had an accident and she was not able to continue working. She said she did not reapply for the one parent family payment because her family would not let her and helped to support her at that time. She also got some assistance from her former partner.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

Having considered all of the available evidence, including that adduced at the oral hearing, the Appeals Officer considered that there was a major credibility issue surrounding the appellant's evidence. It had been established to his satisfaction that the appellant and her partner have had long standing contact over 8 years and he has been included as a member of her household for local authority rent purposes for a number of years. By his own admission, he is the father of the appellant’s youngest child and, by virtue of the amendment to the birth certificates of the appellant's two other children, he had agreed to take on responsibility for all three children. The appellant indicated she wanted all of her children to have the same surname.

The Appeals Officer concluded on the basis of the evidence before him that the appellant was cohabiting for the period under review.

Outcome:

Appeal disallowed

End of Document