Title of Payment: Mortgage Interest Supplement Keywords: Mortgage Interest Supplement application-rejection-re-mortgaged- documentary evidence-oral hearing-appeal successful

Title of Payment: Mortgage Interest Supplement

Case Summary:

The Appellant applied for Mortgage Interest Supplement (MIS) in 2008. The Appellant had re-mortgaged her home for €90,000 in 2006. Her claim for MIS was rejected on two grounds. Firstly, lack of evidence to support claim that the re-mortgage was in part for the purpose of home improvements and secondly the Appellant was self employed. Her application was refused as MIS could only be considered in relation to interest payable on Appellant’s home loan or loan in respect of bone fide repairs and improvements to her home. The Superintendent Community Welfare Officer (SCWO), having noted that the Appellant had previously made an application for MIS in 2003, when her mortgage was €20,400, made enquiries about her reasons for re-mortgaging. The Appellant stated that she had carried out some essential repairs/improvements to the house and had also utilised the money for business purposes. When she was asked to produce receipts or any documentary evidence of works carried out, the Appellant was unable to do so. In addition, the SCWO noted that the Appellant operated a small business for which part of the loan was utilised and this raised the question of assessment of means. At the oral hearing, the Appeals Officer was satisfied with the evidence provided supporting the client’s assertion that she was engaged in part time work. It followed that the Appellant was therefore not precluded from receiving MIS. The application for MIS was partially granted and the Appellant received an award of MIS on the interest attaching to the sum of €18,296 only. 

Download this case

 

Tuesday, 16 June 2009

Title of Payment: Mortgage Interest Supplement

Case Summary:

The Appellant applied for Mortgage Interest Supplement (MIS) in 2008. The Appellant had re-mortgaged her home for €90,000 in 2006. Her claim for MIS was rejected on two grounds. Firstly, lack of evidence to support claim that the re-mortgage was in part for the purpose of home improvements and secondly the Appellant was self employed. Her application was refused as MIS could only be considered in relation to interest payable on Appellant’s home loan or loan in respect of bone fide repairs and improvements to her home. The Superintendent Community Welfare Officer (SCWO), having noted that the Appellant had previously made an application for MIS in 2003, when her mortgage was €20,400, made enquiries about her reasons for re-mortgaging. The Appellant stated that she had carried out some essential repairs/improvements to the house and had also utilised the money for business purposes. When she was asked to produce receipts or any documentary evidence of works carried out, the Appellant was unable to do so. In addition, the SCWO noted that the Appellant operated a small business for which part of the loan was utilised and this raised the question of assessment of means. At the oral hearing, the Appeals Officer was satisfied with the evidence provided supporting the client’s assertion that she was engaged in part time work. It followed that the Appellant was therefore not precluded from receiving MIS. The application for MIS was partially granted and the Appellant received an award of MIS on the interest attaching to the sum of €18,296 only. 

Download this case