You are here: Home >> Case Studies >> Family >> Widows/Survivors Pension
Question At Issue:
whether it was correct to award a (pro-rata) Widow’s Pension in connection with a claim made in 2006; the appellant held that an earlier claim made in 1992 had not been determined.
Background:
The appellant, who is living in the USA, made a claim for Widow’s Pension in 2006, indicating that she had been widowed in 1992 and re-married in 2003. She referred to an earlier claim made in 1992 and sought to have pension paid to her from the date of that claim. However, the claim made in 2006 was treated as a retrospective claim, with the provisions which refer to late claims being applied. The Deciding Officer determined that the appellant did not qualify for pension based on her Irish social insurance record alone. On the basis of a combined Irish/USA record, however, she was awarded a pro-rate pension at a rate of 42%. She would have been eligible for State Pension from a date in 2005 (at age 66 years) so that date was treated as her date of claim and the proportionate backdating provisions were applied. (These are outlined in the Social Welfare (Consolidated Claims, Payments and Control) regulations, 2007 (S.I. 142 of 2007). The appellant was then awarded arrears of pension from a date in 2002 to the date when she re-married.
Consideration of the Appeals Officer:
Over an
extended period, the appellant sought to have the
earlier claim recognised. Ultimately, a review of
the case was carried out by the Department of
Social Protection. The earlier claim papers were
retrieved, establishing that the date of application
was 1992, as asserted by the appellant, but the
decision in the case was confirmed. The
appellant then made an appeal to this Office. In
the context of her appeal, the Department pointed
out that at the time of her claim in 1992, there
was no legislative basis for assessing entitlement
to a pro-rata pension as it pre-dated the
introduction of the Irish/USA Bilateral
Agreement. That Agreement came into effect on
1 September 1993 and provided the basis for
determining pension entitlement by combining
the social insurance records held in both
countries.
The appellant’s grounds of appeal were that she
had made a claim to Widow’s Pension in 1992
and that her entitlement to pension should be
assessed from that date, with arrears of pension
awarded. The Department located the original
claim form and confirmed the date of application
stated by the appellant. The Department also
outlined the procedures which had applied to
claim processing at that time. Briefly, as the
appellant was not entitled to a contributory
pension, her claim was referred for assessment of
entitlement to a non-contributory pension and a
Social Welfare Inspector was asked to interview
her. It transpired that the Inspector had been
unable to contact her and, on that basis, a
Deciding Officer determined that her Widow’s
Pension claim was withdrawn.
The appellant argued that no formal decision had
been made in relation to her claim of 1992. In a
detailed appeal submission, she drew attention to
the statement outlined in the decision notice
issued to her in 1992, as follows: ‘If you wish to
continue your claim at a later stage please
contact this office.’ On this basis, she asserted
that her claim should be treated as having been
made in 1992.
Having carefully considered the evidence in the
case, including the appellant’s detailed
submissions and correspondence over a lengthy
period, as well as copies of papers from 1992 and
details of the review carried out by the
Department, the Appeals Officer concluded that
there was no basis in legislation for the decision
made in 1992 to withdraw the claim. She
considered that the decision at issue was
administrative only and that the question as to the
appellant’s statutory entitlement to a contributory
pension had not been determined. In the
circumstances, she concluded that the claim must
be assessed with effect from 1 September 1993,
when the Irish/USA Bilateral Agreement came
into effect, to the date in 2003 when the appellant
re-married. Accordingly, the appeal was
successful.
Outcome:
Appeal allowed.
End of Document
