Farm Assist Case 1

Background:

The Deciding Officer disallowed the appellant’s application for Farm Assist. The Deciding Officer relied on the Social Welfare Inspector’s report which stated that appellant was self-employed as a plumber / builder and that he was not a farmer.

The Social Welfare Inspector reported that the appellant had been living with his partner in a jointly mortgaged house and that the couple lived together for a number of years having held previous joint mortgages. The couple now has a child. The appellant is a qualified plumber and his extensive farm building was full of plumbing materials. The Social Welfare Inspector reported that the appellant was not engaged in any farming whatsoever. The appellant has an interest in two properties, neither of which was for sale.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant was unaccompanied at the hearing but did bring his child with him. The Appeals Officer explained the questions at issue. The Social Welfare Inspector confirmed that these were the issues and the Appeals officer explained that he would examine each of these issues separately. The matter of property interests was also examined.

The appellant denied cohabitation and corrected the Social Welfare Inspector’s assertion that he had a joint mortgage. The appellant stated that he was in another relationship for the last two years and that he only stays about three nights in his ex-partner’s house and that he spends the other nights with his current girlfriend. The Social Welfare Inspector stated that this was the first that he had heard of the new relationship and that the appellant made no mention of his relationship having ended when he was interviewed, even though his partner would have been four months pregnant at the time.

The appellant agreed that he had joint property interests for the past ten to fifteen years. He explained that he used to buy derelict houses, renovate them and sell them.

The appellant admitted that he was a qualified plumber but that he hated the work and had no intention of resuming his trade. He said that he had bought a job lot of plumbing materials but had not worked at plumbing in the last three or four years.

In reply to the Social Welfare Inspector’s remarks that he was not engaged in any farming whatsoever, the appellant contended that he had been engaged in preparing, almost reclaiming the land. He has two acres of potatoes planted and stated that he had to borrow money from his girlfriend to finance the potato venture. It emerged that, two years ago, the appellant had three hundred chickens and an incubator, but he was forced to sell them after six months.

It emerged that the appellant was engaged in property dealing and had bought, with his partner, a derelict cottage. They intend selling this when renovations are complete. The property is not yet on the market. The appellant produced a list of judgements against him. He also pointed out that he still had an outstanding mortgage and that there was also another burden of debt on this property. The Social Welfare Inspector did not regard this burden as indicative of his indebtedness.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer was not convinced that the appellant was in another relationship. He was not satisfied that, after having lived together, had joint property transactions and having a child together, that the relationship is now only as business partners and that his current girlfriend and his ex-partner are both supporting him.

Having considered the case, the Appeals Officer states that the only reasonable conclusion to arrive at is that the appellant is not a farmer. He is attempting to get into the agri-business but this is not the purpose of the Farm Assist scheme. The Appeals Officer considered that the appellant has not shown that he is not engaged in self-employment as he has a significant interest in two properties, one of which is certainly an investment property.

The Appeals Officer is satisfied that the Deciding Officer had no option but to consider the income of the child’s mother who is at the very least the appellant’s business partner. The appellant admitted that she has been providing board and lodgings and this is assessable as means. Also, the property dealings suggest that the appellant is engaged in property speculation rather than farming. He has no income from any agricultural activity.

The Appeals Officer is not satisfied that the appellant made a full disclosure of his means to the investigating officer and this left the Deciding Officer with no option but to arrive at the decision under appeal.

Outcome:

Appeal disallowed.