One Parent Family Allowence-Staying overnight??

keredern

Fittle wrote: »

I love the way you use bold text, and exclamation marks to back up your information. Since when is one of a persons 'basic human rights' having overnight visitors I've trawled the IHRC website, and funnily enough, can't find a reference to it anywhere:rolleyes:

Not exactly sure what your point is? Are you suggesting that a recipient of OPF is not allowed to have someone stay overnight? Freedom of choice is a basic human right!:rolleyes:

Perhaps you should spend less time being pedantic & more time offering genuine advice & assistance.:p

Let's keep the thread on topic!

micropig

keredern wrote: »

Not exactly sure what your point is? Are you suggesting that a recipient of OPF is not allowed to have someone stay overnight? Freedom of choice is a basic human right!:rolleyes:

Perhaps you should spend less time being pedantic & more time offering genuine advice & assistance.:p

Let's keep the thread on topic!

If the person staying overnight is the child's other parent and contributing, the person is not parenting alone.

Edit: Likewise if the parent with the child is living in the family home of their parents, they are not parenting alone: ie, they do not have to pay the full esb bill, full rent/mortage etc. There is other people in the household contributing also

Atlantis50

Malcolm Delicious Tunnel wrote: »

It is defined...."a cohabitant is one of 2 adults (whether of the same or the opposite sex) who live together as a couple in an intimate and committed relationship and who are not related to each other within the prohibited degrees of relationship or married to each other or civil partners of each other".

Also, where a claim is disallowed the onus is then on the Department to satisfy the deciding officer that cohabitation exists in accordance with the criteria.

That is the definition of cohabitation, not "live together".

The SW inspector could consider 3 "sleepovers" as living together.

Fittle

The Department of Social Protection do not have the resources to send out an inspector to a person who has stayed one night in her boyfriends home, to investigate if she is cohabiting with him.

They do however, act on reports of cohabiting couples (where one person is claiming to be living alone), and base their investigation on photographic or documentary evidence over a period of the previous (approx) 6 months.

Perhaps your friend is not being truthful with you OP - that inspector would only have called out to his girlfriend if she has evidence to suggest that she had been living with him, and would most certainly not have gone near her if she only stayed with him once.

Tordelback

Fittle wrote: »

They do however, act on reports of cohabiting couples (where one person is claiming to be living alone), and base their investigation on photographic or documentary evidence over a period of the previous (approx) 6 months.

Aye, and they have presumably quite enough to do with looking into the many thousands of people who are actually cohabiting and claiming OPF for years, without chasing someone who spent one night in someone else's home.

If this was said to your friend, could it be that some so-and-so has falsely and maliciously reported her for cohabiting, and that the 'even one night' thing is a badly-communicated caution that a report has been made? While I have a lot of sympathy for SW officials and the job they do, and most of the ones I've encountered have been pleasant and professional, there's no question that some have adopted bad attitudes and manners in their dealings with claimants, even if it's just making a poor choice of phrase. We can all be very sensitive to language when we feel we're being judged by an all-powerful authority.

d9oiu2wk07blr5

keredern wrote: »

A claimant does not need to know anything about the relevant legislation to successfully appeal a refusal.

It is the Appeals Officer's job to review the case & apply the legislation accordingly.

This may result in the appeal being won or the decision of the Deciding Officer being upheld.

Very few appellants would have any real knowledge of specific legislation but this would have no bearing on the result of their appeal!

Paddy147, it is always very difficult to correctly interpret anecdotal information relating to a case. It's always possible there is more to your friend's case then the details that have been given to you.

In any case, if the lady in question is refused then she should lodge an appeal within 21 days.

Hope it all works out!:)

Social welfare law is the social welfare consolidation Act in addition to the operational guidelines setting out the rules and criteria governing each scheme and the operational guidelines explains the criteria that must be met for determining whether cohabitation exists or not.

d9oiu2wk07blr5

cee_jay wrote: »

No, the onus is on the applicant, either at the time of making a claim or when under review, to satisfy the SW inspector or Deciding Officer that they satisfy the conditions to receive the payment they have applied for.

Where a claim is disallowed, and appealed, again the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate how they satisfy the conditions of the scheme.

The onus is never on the Department to satisfy a deciding officer. A deciding officer for One Parent Family receives a detailed report from a SW Inspector on a One Parent Family Payment applicant and makes the decision from that accordingly.

OP, the opening line from www.welfare.ie on One Parent Family Payment is:


There are a lot of guidelines and conditions to be met in relation to this scheme. The guidelines for cohabitation have been posted earlier on this thread. It does not say in any guidelines that you can have someone stay overnight for x nights of the week (or not as the case may be). Your friend not being the father of the child has nothing to do with the decision.
A social welfare inspector meets with the applicant to determine the facts in their case, and even if people are stating they live in separate addresses, a claim could be disallowed based on information gleaned by the Social Welfare Inspector during the course of the investigation. This is based on interviewing the claimant, observations on the claimants address, and in some cases local knowledge. Even if they state they are not living in the same address, but are supporting one another, and the address situation is contrived to receive social welfare payments, a payment can be disallowed (I am not saying this is the case here, but just pointing out that it is possible).
As I have stated, the onus of proof is on the applicant.

Your friend's girlfriend can appeal any decision made by the Department.

You are correct there is an onus on the claimant to satisfy the sw inspector that cohabitation doesn't exist but there is also an onus on the inspector to satisfy the deciding officer why a claim should be disallowed....they have to give reasons why a claim should be disallowed...such as a person is over the means threshold and how they came to that conclusion etc....and the request under FOI seeking access to those documents should explain those reasons.

cee_jay

paddy147 wrote: »

Inspector called to the girlfriends family house at 10am on the morning in question.Inspector left a letter with the girlfriends parents,as girlfriend wasnt at home (out on a walk after morning school run).

The inspector left in a letter stating the time she called,and she also SUMMONSED the girlfriend up to the SW office for 2:30pm that very same day.
The letter also stated that if she failed to show up at 2:30pm that same day,then OPF allowence would be cut off.

The Inspector said in the meeting,that it had been noted,that the girlfriend was seen going to another addess/house (the boyfriends house) in the late morning/early daytime (before the school pickup run).

It was also said to her about her co-owning the house with the boyfriend and if she had a mortgage on the house.She stated NO,as she had recently come out of/finished up college and couldnt get any work,so how could she get a mortgage and co own any house??

She was then grilled about her relationship with her boyfriend and whether it was a seruious relationship and if there was a future for her and the boyfriend.

Then she was grilled about her looking for a job and what she was doing with her spare time.

Then she was asked to produce (ASAP) up to date bank statements that prove she lives/resides at her family house and also written proof that she doesnt own any part of the boyfriends house,or have a mortgage with him.





Is this right for a SW officer to grill a person like this and pre judge and more or less threaten someone like this??????

the inspector is doing their job questioning the claimant on their current circumstances and requesting information re: same from them.
It is a means tested payment, so they can be requested to produce bank statements and proof of address at any stage.
I don't see anything completely off the wall with the questions being asked there - if she was seen coming and going from another house early morning, then I would be asking questions of the inspector as to why she wasn't questioned on that!
She was grilled on the relationship so the inspector could establish what the lie of the land is - she is claiming a one parent family payment after all - she should be expected to be asked about any relationship she may be in when this is the payment she is claiming.