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

Jobseekers Allowance (Means) - Case 1 

Question At Issue:

Failure to show that means do not exceed statutory limit.

Background:

The appellant’s claim to Unemployment Assistance was disallowed on grounds that she had failed to show that her means did not exceed the statutory limit (€118.50) applicable to a person in her circumstances. The Deciding Officer was not satisfied that she had shown how she had supported herself for a period of approximately a year and a half.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant attended unaccompanied.

The Deciding Officer was not present, although the Appeals Officer had requested his attendance. The appellant indicated that she wished to proceed in his absence. The Appeals Officer read the Deciding Officer’s decision and appeal submission.

The appellant stated that a person (named in the context of the means assessment) was her best friend but argued that they were not cohabiting. She reported that they had shared two different apartments over a few years, and that there had originally been three people sharing. She stated that she is a lesbian and is not involved in any relationship with a man.

The Appeals Officer advised the appellant that the person named had described her as his partner when he claimed Unemployment Benefit. The appellant said that she was not aware that he had done so, and reiterated her point concerning their friendship but insisted that he led his own separate life. She asserts that they share a two-bedroom apartment only. She pointed out that the Community Welfare Officer had seen the apartment and was satisfied to pay a rent supplement to the appellant only.

The appellant described her health problems, and outlined her financial difficulties. She stated that she had won money (details supplied), and that that had helped to support her, although it was now gone. She asserts that the staff in the Social Welfare Local Officer were aware of this win. The appellant reported that she worked wherever she could find employment. She contended that she never withheld information and that all facts about her are known, and were made known to the Social Welfare Inspector. She said that had an Inspector called to her apartment, the living arrangements could have been observed.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer noted that the appellant denied having any means, and denied also that she was living with the person named. He considered that there was no evidence of equal or greater weight before him to support any alternative argument, and no evidence to indicate whether or not the person named had received any payment in respect of the appellant as a qualified adult. He noted that the appellant was in receipt of Supplementary Welfare Allowance and a rent supplement. He concluded that the appellant must be regarded as a single person, sharing an apartment but not cohabiting and with no means.

Outcome:

Appeal allowed.

End of Document