Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)

The case in question relates to a customer who had requested a pension forecast from my Department on two separate occasions in 1989 and 1995. On both occasions the forecasts provided made reference to 260 contributions, which led the customer to believe he had sufficient contributions to qualify for a pension.

In October 2003, the customer applied to my Department for a retirement pension. Qualification for retirement pension is based on a number of conditions but primarily the customer must have 260 paid full rate contributions and a minimum yearly average of 24 paid or credited contributions. The rate of payment is determined by the yearly average. His application for a retirement pension was refused on the grounds that he had less than 260 full rate contributions paid since entry into insurance. The customer, a retired public servant, had a combination of insurance classes but less than the 260 paid full rate contributions. A decision outlining the position issued to the customer in February 2004. On receipt of the notification of disallowance for retirement pension the customer appealed my Department's decision to the Social Welfare Appeals Office. His appeal failed because the decision was correct, based on his paid insurance record. However, in this case the customer claimed he had a legitimate expectation to a pension based on the information provided for him twice by my Department. He was of the view that if accurate information had been supplied to him when requested and the implications pointed out to him, he would have had ample time to secure the additional contributions required to qualify for a pension. He subsequently took his complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman which made representations on his behalf. It was of the opinion that the customer had a legitimate expectation of entitlement to a pension on foot of the information supplied to him by my Department.

The background and circumstances of the case were fully reviewed and in the interests of fairness, in 2006 my Department sought and received sanction from the Department of Finance to pay a pension under existing legislative provisions, as though the customer had 260 paid contributions. The customer was subsequently paid his pension in September 2006.

See this speech in context