John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 883: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if an appeal against a decision not to grant mortgage interest relief in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kilkenny will be granted. [33594/09]

Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The supplementary welfare allowance scheme, which includes mortgage interest supplement, is administered on behalf of the department by the community welfare division of the Health Service Executive (HSE). As previously advised, payment of a mortgage interest supplement was refused in this case on the grounds that the household income is sufficient to meet the mortgage interest repayment when account is taken of the minimum contribution payable by the person concerned and the non-dependent household member, towards the mortgage repayment. The Executive has confirmed that it has received the appeal and has advised that a decision on the matter will be made in due course by an Appeals Officer of the HSE.

Deirdre Clune (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 884: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she will review the application of a person (details supplied) in County Cork for mortgage interest supplement; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [33619/09]

Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The supplementary welfare allowance scheme, which includes mortgage interest supplement, is administered on behalf of the Department by the community welfare division of the Health Service Executive.

Article 10(2) of the Social Welfare (Consolidated Supplementary Welfare Allowance) Regulations 2007, provides that it shall be a condition of a person's entitlement to mortgage interest supplement that the Executive is satisfied that the amount of mortgage interest payable by the person does not exceed such amount as the Executive considers reasonable to meet his/her residential and other needs. The Executive has advised that the person concerned was refused mortgage interest supplement on the basis that the amount of mortgage interest payable by him exceeded such amount as was considered reasonable by the Executive to meet his residential and other needs.

The person concerned appealed the decision to refuse mortgage interest supplement to an Appeals Officer of the Executive. The Appeals Officer upheld the decision of the Executive to refuse mortgage interest supplement. A further appeal has been made to the Social Welfare Appeals Office but no decision has been made on this appeal to date.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 885: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason a person (details supplied) in County Louth was refused domiciliary care allowance and child benefit; if the decision can be appealed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [33722/09]

Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In order to qualify for a range of Social Welfare payments, including Child Benefit (CB) and Domiciliary Care Allowance (DCA), applicants are required to satisfy the Habitual Residence condition (HRC), which was introduced on 1st May 2004.

The HRC requires the applicant to satisfy the deciding officer that they meet certain conditions. These include proving that their centre of interest is now in Ireland and their future intentions, as demonstrated, are to remain in Ireland. Their residency status and their eligibility to work in Ireland and be self-supporting are also factors which are considered. The person referred to applied for both CB and DCA in April 2009. The Deciding Officers dealing with the relevant applications were not satisfied that the person referred to satisfied the Habitual Residency condition. As a result her application for both payments was refused.

Decision letters outlining the refusals and the reason for same issued to the person concerned in July and she was given the right of appeal. To date, no appeal has been received in either case.