You are here: Home >> Case Studies >> Unemployment >> Jobseekers Allowance - Formerly Unemployment Assistance 

Jobseekers Allowance - Case 3

Question At Issue:

Overpayment of Unemployment Assistance for days on which it is alleged that the appellant was working.

Background:

Following investigation of his claim by a Social Welfare Inspector, the Deciding Officer concluded that the appellant was paid Unemployment Assistance for days on which he had been working. Accordingly, he was deemed not to have been entitled to receive payment for those days and the amount involved was assessed as an overpayment.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant attended unaccompanied. The Social Welfare Inspector was requested to attend but failed to do so.
In the absence of the Social Welfare Inspector, the Appeals Officer read from his report. It referred to a letter he had written to the appellant’s employer in May 2003, requesting details of those days on which the appellant had worked for him. The employer completed a form, showing that the appellant worked on dates in April and May 1999. The Appeals Officer referred to evidence indicating that the appellant had signed for Unemployment Assistance on the dates in question. He advised the appellant that the P35 returns made by his employer to the Revenue Commissioners indicated that he was employed for 50 weeks in the 1999/2000 income tax year. In response, the appellant was adamant that he did not work for 50 weeks in that year. In his evidence, he denied that he worked on the days in question. He acknowledged that he had worked for two days without pay, on a trial basis, shortly before he qualified for a Back to Work Allowance but said that he could not recall on which two days he worked.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer considered that there was a conflict of evidence in the case and noted that the Social Welfare Inspector had not attended to corroborate his report. He noted also that in an unsigned, typed letter (dated 24 May 1999), the employer stated that the appellant had started working for him only on 13 May 1999. He concluded that in all of the circumstances it would be unwise to disallow the appeal and considered that any court would act in a similar manner, in the absence of corroboration of the evidence. He made the point that Appeals Officers are bound by the same rules of evidence.

Outcome:

Appeal allowed.

End of Document