Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle's office for affording me the opportunity to raise this sensitive issue in the House. This matter relates to a constituent who was in receipt of jobseeker's allowance and rent support because she is on the housing list. She was also working the maximum hours allowed in part-time employment. This was satisfactory until last February when her health deteriorated and, on receiving a diagnosis which alarmed her, she went to visit her relatives in her homeland.

On her return she was questioned about her circumstances. Her social welfare payments were ceased. Following numerous questions I raised with the relevant section in the Department of Social Protection and parliamentary questions to the then Minister, I was given to understand that her rent would be restored and that three months' rent, including all arrears, would be paid at the same time. That did not happen. Only two months' arrears were paid. She continued to try to recover the payments that had been discontinued. This lady's health is not good. She paid numerous visits to the doctor. There is a doctor's letter on file setting out her vulnerability.

This situation has dragged on for five months, which is unacceptable. The usual appeals process was provided for but the appeal has not taken place. There is a long waiting list. Meanwhile, the lady in question has no payment, a fact of which her landlord has grown tired. The relationship between herself and the landlord has now broken down and a notice to quit has been issued. She will become homeless in the next few days and certainly by the end of the week.

Given the number of times I have raised the issue, the urgency of the situation, the reasonable explanation provided by the woman and the nature of her family circumstances, this is not acceptable. I am very grateful to the Minister of State for coming to the House and I realise the Minister was unable to attend. I have been a long time in the House and a long time dealing with social welfare queries. I even spent a bit of time in the Department. However, I have never come across a situation in which there was such a determination to punish an individual to the extent of making it virtually impossible for that individual to exist. I await the reply. I hope sincerely to hear that the matter has been resolved. Incidentally, I received responses from one or two people who were helpful, one of whom is making a valiant effort to rectify the matter. In the same way I obviously was, however, that person is also being stonewalled. I await the result.

Finian McGrath (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Durkan for raising this very important matter and I apologise on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Regina Doherty. The person concerned was in receipt of jobseeker's allowance from August 2015 to January 2017 and of rent supplement from May 2015 to January 2017. In January 2017, a review of the jobseeker's allowance claim was instigated on foot of information received by the Department that the person concerned was not residing at the property declared to it. In line with relevant guidelines, this resulted in the suspension of the rent claim. An inspector from the Department met the person concerned who asserted residence at the address. The person could not explain why another resident at the property would have stated otherwise. At the meeting with the inspector, the person confirmed being in receipt of income from self-employment as well as income from part-time employment. Given the level of income declared from the self-employment, together with the other declared income, the means assessment completed in this instance showed that the person concerned had means in excess of the statutory limit for jobseeker's allowance in the circumstances. This means assessment is also used to inform the calculation of rent supplement.

Following this initial meeting, the Department engaged extensively with the person concerned, directly and through Deputy Durkan, to progress the case. These engagements included further meetings with the inspectorate team, correspondence with both the person concerned and Deputy Durkan's office and, most recently, a meeting with the relevant divisional manager. At all times, the Department's focus was on clarifying and verifying the information provided by the person concerned to allow a payment to issue. As the Deputy is aware, having himself attended, a further attempt was made at the most recent meeting organised between the person concerned and officials from the Department to clarify inconsistencies in the information the person concerned had previously submitted. The Department is not satisfied that the person's means have been fully disclosed and, on that basis, the payment was stopped. The decision to stop the payment has been appealed to the social welfare appeals office. I have been advised by the office that an appeals officer has examined the appeal submissions and decided an oral hearing is the most appropriate way to deal with the case. The person concerned will be advised of the details of the oral hearing as soon as arrangements for it can been made.

It is a legal requirement that all tenancies be registered with the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB. While the RTB is precluded from dealing with any dispute relating to a tenancy that might be referred to it by a landlord until such time as a tenancy has been entered onto the RTB's register of tenancies, that does not preclude a tenant from referring matters to the board. Under the current legislation, a landlord seeking to terminate a tenancy in the case of rent arrears must first issue a 14-day warning notice notifying the tenant of the arrears. If the situation is not resolved, he or she may then issue a 28-day notice of termination.

The Deputy will understand that the Department cannot commit to making payments to customers where it has been decided that means have not been disclosed. The same consideration in respect of means also applies to supplementary welfare allowance payments.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his reply but I must point out that it contains at least three major inaccuracies. I do not for a moment suggest that the Minister of State is the architect of that. However, I attended the relevant meeting and am absolutely convinced as to the entitlements of the applicant. I have no doubt that the manner in which a conclusion was reached in this case was not in accordance with due process and best practice, which is a basic requirement of all social welfare determinations. Due process and natural justice are tests which must apply in all such cases. If they do not, there is a problem and that problem still exists.

As I well know, everything is geared towards waiting until the summer break when there will be no response at all. I am sure the Minister of State is well aware of that in situations such as this. Looking for a lease at this stage is an option that is past its sell-by date. The relationship between the landlord and the tenant has broken down as a result of the absence of payments and four or five months of arrears. I have been looking at situations like this for a long time but I have never seen this kind of attitude develop before. It is necessary to have a very serious look at the manner in which these determinations are being made. I have a separate question on tomorrow's Order Paper seeking to ascertain the methodology and pattern developing in this area.

There is still time to undertake a fair assessment. At least one divisional regional manager made a serious attempt to resolve the problem but I have a funny feeling that person will be stonewalled just as I have been for the past six months.

Finian McGrath (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am well aware of Deputy Durkan's great record on social welfare and in looking after constituents. I commend him on his dedication and work on this issue. Of course, I take the point that when a health issue is involved, we have to be sensitive. We must also be aware that an oral hearing is on the agenda. Hopefully, the issues the Deputy raises today can be resolved at that stage. The Deputy said there were three major inaccuracies and raised questions of due process, best practice and natural justice. We all support due process. Another complicating issue is the landlord-tenant relationship. The Deputy also referred to the methodology that applied. I will bring all of the issues he raised back to the Minister for Employment and Social Protection and ensure she hears about the facts of the case and the matters and concerns the Deputy raised.