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

Jobseekers Benefit - Case 3

Question At Issue:

Whether the rate of graduated Unemployment Benefit – determined with reference to specified limits – is correct.

Background:

The Appellant’s Unemployment Benefit claim was decided by a Deciding Officer in accordance with the Department’s guidelines and rates for 2005.

Appellant’s contention was that in 2003, the earnings year on which his graduated payment was based, the Department’s documentation indicated that he could qualify for full Unemployment Benefit with earnings of over €88.88 per week. By the time he made his claim in 2005, the threshold had been changed, and he could qualify for full Unemployment Benefit only if he had earned over €150.00 per week in the reckonable year, i.e. in 2003. Appellant’s point was that his assurance that €88.88 was sufficient to entitle him to full Unemployment Benefit impelled him to be content with that level of earnings. The implication was that had he anticipated the alteration in the thresholds he would have ensured that he earned more, and would thus have qualified for full Benefit.

Oral Hearing:

The Appellant was unaccompanied at the hearing. The Appeals Officer began by explaining to the appellant the criteria for graduated payment from the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

The Appellant stated to the Appeals Officer that he felt that the Local Office was wrong in its assessment. The Appeals Officer explained to the appellant that in 2003 the bands changed for graduated payment, and the bands at that stage were €125.00 to €150.00 per week. The Appeals Officer informed the Appellant that his earnings were €137.00 and that the Local Office was correct in its assessment.

The Appellant stated to the Appeals Officer that it was incorrect to make an assessment on his 2003 record, and that it should have been done on his 2005 record. The Appellant stated that his Local Office should have known in 2003 what he would earn in 2005. The Appeals Officer informed the Appellant that it would not be possible to do that.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

While the appellant may have a point in what he claims, he is however, effectively claiming the establishment of a “legitimate expectation” of payment of full Benefit. This, it would appear, is a matter for the courts to decide. The Courts have clarified in the past, that an expectation is “legitimate” only if it is an expectation of something that is basically legal. On this basis, it would seem that the “expectation” in this case is not “legitimate”.

On the basis of the law as it currently stands, the Appellant’s entitlement to graduated payment has been correctly assessed.

Outcome:

Appeal disallowed.

End of Document