Written answers

Tuesday, 22 March 2011

Department of Social Protection

Social Welfare Appeals

9:00 pm

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 128: To ask the Minister for Social Protection when a review of an application for jobseeker's allowance will be undertaken in respect of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 15; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [4921/11]

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mr. Sanko applied for jobseeker's allowance on 18 December 2008. A decision was issued on 4 January 2010 stating that Mr. Sanko was not entitled to jobseeker's allowance on the grounds that he was not habitually resident in the State.

Mr. Sanko appealed this decision on 19 January 2010. The Appeals Office wrote to Mr. Sanko on 10 January 2011 stating the original decision had been upheld and the appeal has been disallowed.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 129: To ask the Minister for Social Protection when a review of an application for job seeker's allowance will be undertaken in respect of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 15; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [4922/11]

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ms. Asiedu applied for jobseeker's allowance on 18 December 2008. A decision was issued on 5 January 2010 stating that Ms. Asiedu was not entitled to jobseeker's allowance on the grounds that she was not habitually resident in the State.

Ms. Asiedu appealed this decision on 21 January 2010. On 11 January 2011, the Appeals Office wrote to Ms. Asiedu stating that the original decision had been upheld and the appeal was disallowed.

Ms. Asiedu wrote to the Appeals Office on 12 January 2011 looking for a review of the decision. On 1 March 2011, the Appeals Office wrote stating that as no new facts or evidence was submitted which would warrant a revision of the decision; the Appeals Officer is satisfied that the decision should stand.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.