AN UNEMPLOYED man who was denied rent supplement by the Department of Social Protection because he still owned a share of his former family home has had his appeal allowed.
If his appeal had not been allowed, the county council involved would have had to pay for bed and breakfast accommodation costing up to €1,350 a month for him, almost twice as much as the rent supplement he claimed.
The decision could have implications for other separated people in need of rent supplement.
Rent supplement covers the cost of private rented accommodation when an applicant is assessed as being unable to meet that cost.
It is administered on behalf of the Department of Social Protection by the community welfare services division of the HSE.
The man was renting a property close to his former family home and was sharing custody of his son when he lost his job last September. He applied for and received unemployment benefit, but when he applied for rent supplement he was refused.
He was told by his community welfare officer that his former family home, in which his wife and son were still living, was worth €196 a week to him because he still owned a share of it.
He appealed the decision to the superintendent community welfare officer and then to the social welfare appeals office.
He explained he was not getting any income from the house, but his final appeal to the chief appeals officer at the social welfare appeals office was rejected in February this year.
The county council then offered him bed and breakfast accommodation at a cost of up to €45 a night. He was told he would not be allowed to have his son stay with him while he was there.
He then contacted the ombudsman who asked the social welfare appeals office to re-examine the case. In a letter sent to the man last week, the appeals office said it had revised its decision. It said it was satisfied the family home could not be put to profitable use.
“Its value should not be assessed as means against the appellant pending its sale,” the letter said.
The man said he was relieved at the decision and wanted to thank the ombudsman’s office for its help. He also wanted to highlight the outcome. “No doubt there are other single/separated/divorced parents in the same situation.”
A spokesman for the ombudsman’s office said its policy was not to comment on the details of individual cases.
A spokeswoman for the department also said she could not comment on individual cases. However she said where a property owned by a separated couple could not be put to profitable use, the community welfare officer would not normally assess the value of it as part of the applicant’s means.
