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

Disability Allowance Case 2

Question At Issue:

Appellant is appealing the decision of the Deciding Officer that she did not satisfy the statutory conditions for receipt of Disability Allowance as she had failed to show that her means did not exceed the statutory limit.

Background:

The Deciding Officer relied on the Social Welfare Inspector’s report that he was not satisfied that appellant had genuinely disposed of €51,000.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant was accompanied by her sister. The Social Welfare Inspector attended as requested. The Appeals Officer explained the question at issue.

The Social Welfare Inspector outlined his report and the reason as to why he was not satisfied with the disposal of the capital. He pointed out there had been several investigations carried out in an effort to establish the appellant’s means. There are no other unresolved means except the regarding the disposal of €51,000.

In response, appellant stated that she had given the money to her brother who had gambled it away. He had also lost her sister’s money. Both appellant and her sister were bequeathed €50,000 each, by their late brother. She alleges that her brother, a compulsive gambler apparently, forced her to gradually hand over this money so that he could continue his gambling. This brother is a farmer and appellant claims that his gambling has lead to him having to sell some of his land. Appellant alleges that her brother has spent her and her sister’s bequests and the proceeds from the sale of the land. In total, this comes to €184,000.

The Social Welfare Inspector confirmed that he was satisfied that the undisclosed means did not exceed €51,000.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The issue in this case is the undisclosed means of €51,000. The appellant’s previous claim was disallowed on the grounds that she had not shown that her means did not exceed the statutory limit. The appellant had at that stage failed to provide details of her bank account. This information was produced following her re-application.

No evidence was submitted in support of the appellant’s contention that her brother had gambled away her capital. It seems inconceivable that the family did not take steps to prevent the brother’s disposal of the capital. There is no evidence that her brother ever received this money and the Social Welfare Inspector had little option but to report as he did.

The appellant has not shown that she has disposed of the capital as submitted and the appeal is disallowed. There is no suggestion that the undisclosed means exceed the statutory limit and the disclosed capital and the undisclosed capital appear to amount to €53,729.91.

On that basis, appellant’s means are assessed at a weekly value of €100.65.

Outcome:

Appeal disallowed.

End of Document