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

One Parent Family Payment Case 4

Question At Issue:

Revised decision as to entitlement to payment, resulting in the assessment of an overpayment of some €14,000.

Background:

The appellant was in receipt of a One-Parent Family Payment prior to taking up employment. Following a review of her entitlement to payment, details of that employment, including earnings, were examined. A Deciding Officer revised her means accordingly and assessed an overpayment. An earlier oral hearing had been adjourned to allow the appellant to obtain copies of the relevant documents.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant was accompanied by a friend. The Deciding Officer attended at the request of the Appeals Officer. The appellant confirmed that she had received copies of all the relevant documentation.

The Deciding Officer outlined the basis for his decision, which reduced the appellant’s entitlement to payment over a five-year period and resulted in an overpayment of the order of €14,000. He contended that there was no evidence that the appellant had returned her payment book when she commenced employment in 1997, nor was there any evidence that she had notified the Department that she had started work. The Deciding Officer argued that the payment in question was subject to a means test and that the recipient was obliged to notify the Department of an increase in means.

The appellant reported that, having completed a training course run by Foras Áiseanna Saothair/Training and Employment Authority (FÁS), she commenced employment in 1997. She contended that she returned her payment book with details of her place of employment and that when a new book arrived with the rate of payment unchanged, she contacted the Department again. She asserted that she was advised that the events, which would affect her entitlement, were a change of employment or marriage. She indicated that she had assumed from this advice that the information which she had given to the Revenue Commissioners must automatically be available to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. She reported that in 2000, she was asked to sign a declaration of continuing entitlement to the One-Parent Family Allowance and that she signed the form and returned it. She argued that, as it was then three years since the employment began, and given that she had advised the Department of the fact, she had assumed that her entitlement continued. She pointed out that the form she signed made no reference to an obligation to inform the Department of an increase in earnings. She stated that she had included the phone number of her place of work on that form.

The appellant then went on to describe a review of her entitlement in 2001 when she advised the Social Welfare Inspector of her employment. She reported that she had also provided him with details of her mortgage application, as requested. She argued strongly that it was unreasonable for the Department to take almost fourteen months to examine her entitlement following that review. She argued that, had she been asked to return her book at the time of the review in 2001, the overpayment would amount to some €6,000 less. She stated that a colleague, working in the wages department, was prepared to provide evidence to the effect that she could recall the appellant making contact with the Department in 1997 when she started work. The appellant argued that it was clear from the documents she had received, in response to her request under the Freedom of Information Act, that the Department had details of her earnings since 1997. Finally, she contended that she was not in a position to repay the overpayment in the event that it was determined to have been correct.

In response, the Deciding Officer acknowledged that the delay of fourteen months had not been considered in assessing the overpayment. He stated that the Department had not been able to deal with the case more speedily. He maintained his position that the appellant had an obligation to notify the Department when her earnings increased, and held that he had no evidence that the appellant had notified the Department when she commenced employment.

The contentions advanced by the appellant and by the Deciding Officer were discussed as the Appeals Officer sought to clarify the points at issue. The Deciding Officer acknowledged that the Department could have acted on the information provided on the declaration signed in 2000 and that it was in possession of details of the appellant’s earnings at that stage. The appellant’s friend read a statement, effectively a character reference for the appellant, and gave the Appeals Officer a written copy. The appellant also submitted a second similar statement from someone else who knew her well.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer noted that contact with the appellant’s colleague in the wages department, made at her request, indicated that the appellant had spoken freely about her allowance and about the fact that she had been advised that she could retain her entitlement. While her colleague could not recall witnessing the phone call in question, she stated that she was aware that the appellant had reported the fact.

The Appeals Officer reviewed the documentary evidence and examined the contentions advanced at the oral hearing. He concluded that it had been clearly established that the Department was aware that the appellant was working and had details of her earnings from 2000. He considered that a decision was warranted at that stage and that the Department’s non-intervention at that point was difficult to justify. He regarded this oversight as adding some weight to the appellant’s contention that she had notified the Department when she started work in 1997, having completed an approved FÁS course. Having regard to all the evidence, he concluded that the decision to award a reduced rate of One-Parent Family Payment was correct but that it should have been implemented from a current date only. On this basis, no overpayment arises.

Outcome:

Partially allowed.

End of Document