You are here: Home >> Case Studies >> Sickness >> Disability Allowance 

Disability Allowance Case 1

Question At Issue:

Residence in an ‘institution’

Background:

The appellant had been in receipt of Disability Allowance but, following a review by the Department of Social and Family Affairs, his claim was disallowed on grounds that he was resident in an institution where all or part of his maintenance costs were met by the Health Board. The appeal in this case represents one of a number made by residents of a former psychiatric hospital, living in accommodation owned by the Health Board in question. The appellant’s case was selected by the Appeals Officer as a test case in relation to the issue of residence in an ‘institution’, on grounds that he had legal representation, and she considered the case offered the best prospect for presentation of evidence.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant attended, accompanied by his solicitor. The Director of Nursing, the Assistant Director of Nursing, and a psychiatrist attended to represent the interests of the Health Board psychiatric services.

The Assistant Director of Nursing explained that there are three units, properties owned by the Health Board, in which former full-time residents of the local psychiatric hospital are
accommodated and supported by Health Board staff, with a view to their assimilation back into the community. The support staff includes two nurses, an occupational therapist, and a psychiatric social worker. The nurses on duty provide training in areas such as budgeting, cooking, self-care, and general social interaction. The initial training for independent living is provided in two units, one of which accommodates twenty residents and the other, seventeen residents. The third unit is a separate premises on the grounds of the former psychiatric hospital and accommodates eight residents who are closer to being ready for full independence; the appellant resides in this unit. The Director of Nursing reported that until recently all of the residents had received Disability Allowance.

It was reported that since the training programme commenced in 1987, some 300 people had been helped to find more independent accommodation, or homes of their own, and to be assimilated back into the community. The scheme arose from the government’s document ‘Planning for the Future’, which was published in 1984 and encouraged the rehabilitation of long-term psychiatric patients.

It was submitted that the residents have been discharged from the care of the psychiatric services and are no longer covered by the provisions of the Mental Health Acts. They are required to pay a weekly rent (€18.40) from their own resources, and to make a contribution (€10) to a central fund for shared food. Apart from this, they supply and cook their own food. There are other items to be met from the residents’ own resources, and the total cost is estimated at €47 approximately per week. In the appellant’s case, these costs were being met from his weekly Supplementary Welfare Allowance payment.

All those present asserted, at various points during the hearing, that the alternative for the residents is homelessness: they are not the responsibility of the psychiatric services, having been discharged, but are not yet ready for independent living. In the appellant’s case, he has a home of his own to which he is preparing to return.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer considered that the appellant’s demeanour and behaviour were consistent with the position conveyed by the Health Board representatives in evidence, and she accepted that he was in the final stages of preparation for a return to living in the community. She noted that the appellant was in receipt of Supplementary Welfare Allowance, and that other residents appeared also to be in receipt of the same payment, in many cases prior to their lodging Disability Allowance claims. She concluded that the evidence presented at the hearing indicated that the appellant was resident in a moderate/high dependency hostel, in which the residents’ maintenance costs are met from their own resources, currently from Supplementary Welfare Allowance. On this basis, she concluded that the appellant is not resident in an ‘institution’ within the meaning of the social welfare regulations and that, subject to medical criteria being met, he is entitled to Disability Allowance.

Outcome:

Appeal allowed.

End of Document