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

Jobseekers Allowance (Habitual Residence) Case 1

Question At Issue:

Whether the appellant may be deemed to be habitually resident in the State for purposes of his Unemployment Assistance claim.

Background:

The appellant and his family came to Ireland in May 2004 from Slovakia. When he became unemployed, he claimed Unemployment Assistance and was required to establish that he satisfied the habitual residence condition. The Deciding Officer concluded that he had not been resident in the State for the previous two years, that he did not have a stable pattern of employment in the State and that he had not secured employment prior to his arrival. Accordingly, his claim was rejected on grounds that he had not met the habitual residence condition.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant attended, accompanied by his wife and their child. He was supported in his appeal by two members of staff at his local Citizens Information Centre, and they also attended the hearing.

The appellant stated that, with the enlargement of the European Union in May 2004, he thought that there would be no difficulty in getting work in Ireland. He reported that he and his wife and children had left their country of origin due to lack of work and overcrowding in the family home, where they had lived with his mother-in-law. He said that on arrival in Ireland he had rented a house, having raised the money for the deposit by way of loans from friends. He and his wife applied for Supplementary Welfare Allowance and for a rent supplement under that scheme but he said that their claims were rejected as they were not considered to be habitually resident. He stated that they had been awarded Child Benefit in respect of their two children.

The appellant reported that he worked as a hotel porter from July 2004 until February 2005. He said that he and his family were subject to harassment and racial abuse in the area where they were living and so they decided to move to their current accommodation in June 2005. At that stage, the appellant had secured work as a labourer. The appellant’s wife was unable to get work due to health problems. She had undergone surgery in November 2005 and continues to receive treatment. They reported that due to a lack of funds they had incurred debts. They produced electricity and other bills in support of this contention. The appellant stated that when he was not working, the family had survived by way of help from friends and food parcels from the local St. Vincent de Paul Society.

The appellant reported that the lease on the family’s accommodation was for one year, with effect from June 2005,that they had opened a bank account, that they have two children attending local schools, with the older one registered for secondary school with effect from September 2006. He referred to their involvement in the local parent/teacher association. He stated that he has no family in Slovakia. The appellant and his wife asserted that once they made the decision to come to Ireland, it was always their intention to remain and to make a life for themselves and their children here.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer noted that the appellant had taken whatever work was available to him. He examined the evidence presented by the appellant and his wife in relation to their residence in the State and the arrangements they had made for their children’s education. He noted that the appellant was not resident in the State for two years at the date of his claim for Unemployment Assistance but, having examined all of the evidence in the case, he concluded that the appellant and his wife were embedded here and that they were, therefore, habitually resident in the State.

Outcome:

Appeal allowed.

End of Document