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

One Parent Family Payment Case 8

Question At Issue:

Whether the appellant was entitled to receive a One Parent Family Payment during the period when her husband was in prison.

Background:

The appellant made a claim to a One Parent Family Payment in December 2002. The Deciding Officer requested that she provide her own and her children’s birth certificates, her marriage certificate and a statement from the prison governor concerning her husband’s incarceration. The Deciding Officer wrote to her some three weeks later, advising that her claim had been withdrawn as she failed to furnish the information sought. The appellant replied, insisting that she had not withdrawn her claim. The Deciding Officer then wrote to the prison authorities and sent a further request to the appellant for the information sought originally. As she had changed her address, a Social Welfare Inspector was asked to report on her means and change of circumstances. That report was completed in September and indicated that the appellant satisfied the conditions for receipt of payment and that she had not withdrawn her claim. The appellant also wrote again to the Department of Social and Family Affairs, reiterating her position in relation to her claim. Nonetheless, the Deciding Officer disallowed her claim on grounds that it had been withdrawn, replicating the decision of April 2003. In December 2003, the appellant submitted another claim form, enclosing all the necessary certificates. The prison governor had, in the meantime, confirmed the details as to her husband’s sentence. This claim and an accompanying letter from a Community Welfare Officer were treated as an appeal. The Deciding Officer awarded payment at the maximum rate from the date of receipt of the certificates. In her written appeal submission, she stated that she did not backdate payment as she considered that the appellant had had ample opportunity to furnish the documents at an earlier date. The Appeals Officer dealt with the appeal on a summary basis.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer pointed out that it is not open to a Deciding Officer in any circumstances to withdraw a claim so that the two decisions made on this basis were null and void. He examined the third one as the only valid decision in the case. He concluded, however, that it was incorrect as it awarded payment only from a date in December 2003, effectively imposing a very significant penalty on the appellant. He noted also that the appellant was not informed that her claim for the period December 2002 to December 2003 had been disallowed and that she was not informed of the reason for the disallowance. He considered that she was, therefore, deprived of her right to make her case against the disallowance and that this represented a breach of the rules of natural justice. The Appeals Officer noted that the claim made in December 2002 was still extant as it had not been withdrawn by the appellant and he awarded payment with effect from that date. While he conceded that much of the delay in this case was attributable to the appellant’s tardiness in submitting the necessary documentation, he expressed concern also at the time taken by the Department in dealing with the claim. He expressed the view that allowance needs to be made for clients who are from a disadvantaged background as was clearly the case in relation to the appellant.

Outcome:

Appeal allowed.

End of Document