We recently received a positive outcome in a social welfare appeal taken on behalf of a Roma client. Our client was refused supplementary welfare allowance on the basis that she did not satisfy habitual residence condition. Our client had been in the State since 2010 and we submitted that there was clear evidence of her continuity of residence in the State, of the fact that the State was her main centre of interest and of her intention to continue to reside in the State, therefore substantiating her habitual residence in the State. The Social Welfare Appeals Officer upheld our appeal and quashed the original decision to refuse our client the entitlement. Our client has been living in extremely difficult circumstances while this matter has been pending resolution and she is relieved that her social welfare claim will now be processed in the proper manner.
The habitual residence condition is a qualifying condition for social welfare payments that was introduced in 2004. It applies with respect of means tested social welfare benefits. The habitual residence condition essentially assesses an applicant’s ties and connections to the State and whether or not their future intention is to remain in the State, so as to qualify them to any benefit. It is seen as a preventative measure to ensure individuals do not come to the State simply to avail of social welfare without having any meaningful ties here. It applies to Irish national applicants and non-national applicants alike.
The Department of Social Protection apply five criteria when assessing habitual residence and these include in summary:- the length and continuity of living in the State or in another country, length and reasons for any absence from the State, nature and pattern of employment, the applicant’s main centre of interest and the future intentions of the applicant applying for the social welfare scheme.
In our particular case the criteria were not properly applied and there was no assessment of the particular facts and circumstances of the case. As a Romanian national of Roma ethnicity, our client did not have a bank account in her own name and did not retain extensive documents to substantiate her length of residence and connections in the State. She did however have evidence of her continue residence and her intention to reside in the State but her full circumstances were not properly assessed or interrogated by the deciding officer.
While it is a positive development that she has now been found eligible to claim her supplementary welfare allowance, she has experienced considerable hardship during the lengthy delay in having this matter resolved. There was a delay of almost six months between the appeal being lodged and the appeal being heard and it is likely that it was only heard at that stage because we pressed the matter and threatened litigation unless the deciding officer provided the required documentation for the appeal to proceed. The case indicates that the positive outcome can be reached in the end, but only after lengthy delays and considerable effort on behalf of the applicant.
Rebecca Keatinge,
The habitual residence condition is a qualifying condition for social welfare payments that was introduced in 2004. It applies with respect of means tested social welfare benefits. The habitual residence condition essentially assesses an applicant’s ties and connections to the State and whether or not their future intention is to remain in the State, so as to qualify them to any benefit. It is seen as a preventative measure to ensure individuals do not come to the State simply to avail of social welfare without having any meaningful ties here. It applies to Irish national applicants and non-national applicants alike.
The Department of Social Protection apply five criteria when assessing habitual residence and these include in summary:- the length and continuity of living in the State or in another country, length and reasons for any absence from the State, nature and pattern of employment, the applicant’s main centre of interest and the future intentions of the applicant applying for the social welfare scheme.
In our particular case the criteria were not properly applied and there was no assessment of the particular facts and circumstances of the case. As a Romanian national of Roma ethnicity, our client did not have a bank account in her own name and did not retain extensive documents to substantiate her length of residence and connections in the State. She did however have evidence of her continue residence and her intention to reside in the State but her full circumstances were not properly assessed or interrogated by the deciding officer.
While it is a positive development that she has now been found eligible to claim her supplementary welfare allowance, she has experienced considerable hardship during the lengthy delay in having this matter resolved. There was a delay of almost six months between the appeal being lodged and the appeal being heard and it is likely that it was only heard at that stage because we pressed the matter and threatened litigation unless the deciding officer provided the required documentation for the appeal to proceed. The case indicates that the positive outcome can be reached in the end, but only after lengthy delays and considerable effort on behalf of the applicant.
Rebecca Keatinge,
No comments:
Post a Comment