Case Studies » One Parent Family » One Parent Family Payment - Case from 2015 Annual Report (ref: 2015/06)

Background: The appellant had been in receipt of One Parent Family Payment since 2010 and in 2014, her claim was reviewed.  A Social Welfare Inspector’s report noted that a car which was registered to a (named) person had been observed outside her home, along with a pair of men’s work boots.  She interviewed the appellant, who denied that the person concerned lived there.  She acknowledged that she had been on holiday with her children and partner (the person named) but said that he did not live with her.  Details of the appellant’s means were reviewed also.  The Inspector confirmed subsequently that the appellant’s partner owned another house which had been let.  She contacted him and he confirmed that he owned the house and said that he lived there occasionally, while also living with his elderly parents.  Images taken from the social media website, Facebook, showing the appellant and her children with the person named, on a date in 2012, were included in the Inspector’s report.  The Deciding Officer wrote to the appellant, informing her of the Inspector’s report and inviting her comments prior to making a decision, in line with the requirements of natural justice.  In her reply, the appellant stated that when she attended an interview with the Inspector, she panicked on learning that her claim was being investigated and gave incorrect information regarding the duration of her relationship.  She said that her partner stayed at her house on occasion but that they had only recently come to view their relationship as more permanent.  She stated that he had not contributed in any way to her mortgage or the upkeep of her home, and that she had to rely on an insurance protection policy to help pay her mortgage when she lost her job.  She stated that her G.P. could confirm that she and her children attended as a family unit.  Ultimately, the claim was terminated on grounds that she was cohabiting and therefore disqualified for receipt of One Parent Family Payment.

In a letter of appeal, the appellant stated that she lives at a specified address, while her partner owns and lives in his own home at another address.  She said that she was finding it very difficult to cope since her payments ceased.  In support of her appeal she submitted: copies of her partner’s P60 forms, his insurance, motor tax, and NCT details, bank statements and documents from Irish Water, the Revenue Commissioners and the local sports club – all indicating his stated address.  In addition, she submitted bank statements, phone and electricity bills, as well as other correspondence in her own name, at her home address.

Oral hearing: The appellant was accompanied by a family member.  The Inspector attended at the Appeals Officer’s request, and outlined the details of her report.  She stated that while her investigation confirmed that his car was registered at his stated address, she was of the opinion that the appellant’s partner did not reside there and that this had been confirmed by the tenant who was currently renting the property.  She said that the appellant had misinformed her as to the duration of the relationship and she noted that when she called the person named on the phone, he told her that he was at home, in the appellant’s house.    

The appellant stated that she and her partner did not live together as a couple, and never had.  She acknowledged that she may have been untruthful regarding the duration of their relationship, saying that they had been dating since 2012, but that it was only in recent months that they realised it was serious and only then that she introduced him to her children as her partner.  She added that he had stayed overnight on occasions when her children were away and, referring to the nature of his work, said that he was away from home quite a lot.  She said that he does not provide any care/maintenance for her children and that her siblings do so when required.  She reiterated that the mortgage on her home and all utility and household bills are met solely by her.  She added that while they were on holiday, he had parked his car at her house for security reasons. 

The Inspector stated that, based on her investigation, she considered that it had been established that the appellant was cohabiting with the person named although she acknowledged that she had seen his car only once parked at the appellant’s home.

Conclusions: The Appeals Officer noted that when a person applies for a social welfare payment, the burden of proof lies with them to show that they meet the conditions of entitlement.  However, once a claim is in payment, if consideration is to be given to withdrawing the payment, the burden of proof shifts and rests with the Department to establish that a change/withdrawal is appropriate.

He noted the provisions of the governing legislation, as follows: Section 175 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 2005 prescribes that a ‘qualified parent shall not, if and so long as that parent and any person are cohabiting as husband wife, be entitled to and shall be disqualified for receiving payment of one-parent family payment.  Section 15 of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act, 2010 inserted the following definition into Section 2 (1) of the Act of 2005 – ’cohabitant’  means a cohabitant within the meaning of section 172(1) of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act, 2010.

Section 172 of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act, 2010 prescribes –‘for the purposes of this Part, a cohabitant is one of 2 adults (whether of the same or the opposite sex) who live together as a couple in an intimate and committed relationship and who are not related to each other within the prohibited degrees of relationship or married to each other or civil partners of each other’.  It goes on to provide that all the circumstances of the relationship must be considered and, in particular, the following:

 (a) the duration of the relationship;

(b) the basis on which the couple live together;

(c) the degree of financial dependence of either adult on the other and any agreements in respect of their finances;

(d) the degree and nature of any financial arrangements between the adults including any joint purchase of an estate or interest in land or joint acquisition of personal property;

(e) whether there are one or more dependent children;

(f) whether one of the adults cares for and supports the children of the other; and

(g) the degree to which the adults present themselves to others as a couple.

The Appeals Officer noted that the evidence submitted in support of the decision to terminate the appellant’s claim on grounds of cohabitation included reference to her partner’s car and a pair of men’s boots having been observed outside her home, her partner’s house being rented out to a long-term tenant, his other stated residence at his parent’s home not having been confirmed, and the appellant having misinformed the Inspector as to the duration of their relationship.

The Appeals Officer noted that while the appellant and her partner may present themselves as a couple within their community, there were no obvious financial links with each other, no children from the relationship, and the care and support of her children was provided by the appellant and her family.  He considered that whilst an issue of credibility may arise in the case, he was not satisfied that the Department had proven cohabitation and, in the circumstances, concluded that it would be unreasonable and unfair to uphold the decision. 

Outcome: Appeal allowed.