Title of Payment: Family Income Supplement Keywords: Family Income Supplement – definition of family – normal residence - appeal –oral hearing - section 317 - section 318

Title of Payment: Family Income Supplement 

Case Summary:

This case concerns a father of two children who applied for Family Income Supplement (FIS) on 17 October 2012.  The Appellant does not live with the other parent, nor does he reside with his children. He maintains his children by way of monthly maintenance payments of €260. The children’s mother is not in receipt of a social welfare payment other than Child Benefit.  The Deciding Officer refused the Appellant’s claim for FIS on the 24 October 2012 on the basis that he could not qualify for FIS unless he was wholly or mainly maintaining his spouse and children; or, alternatively, his children must be living with him the majority of the time.

Sligo MABS, on behalf of the Appellant, appealed this decision on 8 November 2012. On 3 April 2014, an oral hearing was held.  On 9 June 2014 the Appeals Office issued its decision disallowing the appeal on the grounds that the Appellant’s circumstances did not fall within the statutory definition of a “family” as provided by s.227 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005 (as amended)  -“the Act”, and that Article 13 of the Social Welfare (Consolidated Claims, Payments and Control) Regulations 2007, S.I. 142 of 2007, - “the Regulations”, which refer to the “normal residence” of a child/ren, did not apply in this case.

On 26 August 2014 the Appellant requested a review by the Chief Appeals Officer of the Appeals Officer’s decision in accordance with s.318 of the Act, submitting that the Appeals Officer had erred in law, that the Appellant’s circumstances were in fact consistent with the meaning of “family” as provided by s.227 of the Act, and that the “normal residence” of his children should be decided in accordance with Article 13 of the Regulations.

The Appeals Officer subsequently reviewed his decision and decided to allow the appeal on 10 November 2014.  The Appeals Officer accepted that the Appellant’s circumstances were in fact consistent with the statutory definition of a “family” for the purpose of receiving FIS and that Article 13 of the Regulations did apply in this case. See also Case Number G0073, which was decided by the Chief Appeals Officer on 29/06/2015.

Download this case.

Monday, 10 November 2014

Title of Payment: Family Income Supplement 

Case Summary:

This case concerns a father of two children who applied for Family Income Supplement (FIS) on 17 October 2012.  The Appellant does not live with the other parent, nor does he reside with his children. He maintains his children by way of monthly maintenance payments of €260. The children’s mother is not in receipt of a social welfare payment other than Child Benefit.  The Deciding Officer refused the Appellant’s claim for FIS on the 24 October 2012 on the basis that he could not qualify for FIS unless he was wholly or mainly maintaining his spouse and children; or, alternatively, his children must be living with him the majority of the time.

Sligo MABS, on behalf of the Appellant, appealed this decision on 8 November 2012. On 3 April 2014, an oral hearing was held.  On 9 June 2014 the Appeals Office issued its decision disallowing the appeal on the grounds that the Appellant’s circumstances did not fall within the statutory definition of a “family” as provided by s.227 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005 (as amended)  -“the Act”, and that Article 13 of the Social Welfare (Consolidated Claims, Payments and Control) Regulations 2007, S.I. 142 of 2007, - “the Regulations”, which refer to the “normal residence” of a child/ren, did not apply in this case.

On 26 August 2014 the Appellant requested a review by the Chief Appeals Officer of the Appeals Officer’s decision in accordance with s.318 of the Act, submitting that the Appeals Officer had erred in law, that the Appellant’s circumstances were in fact consistent with the meaning of “family” as provided by s.227 of the Act, and that the “normal residence” of his children should be decided in accordance with Article 13 of the Regulations.

The Appeals Officer subsequently reviewed his decision and decided to allow the appeal on 10 November 2014.  The Appeals Officer accepted that the Appellant’s circumstances were in fact consistent with the statutory definition of a “family” for the purpose of receiving FIS and that Article 13 of the Regulations did apply in this case. See also Case Number G0073, which was decided by the Chief Appeals Officer on 29/06/2015.

Download this case.