Are new social welfare requirements unconstitutional?

ormeau 1

I noticed the department of social welfare are now requesting that people produce a lease if they want to avail of jobseekers allowance. From my understanding of the law, a lease amounts to a property right and why someone needs proof of a property right to avail of social welfare bewilders me.

A guy I know who made a claim for jobseekers told me that he produced a bank statement and utility bill as proof of address. They then demanded that he produce a lease between him and his landlord.

Doesn't make sense.

V.W.L 11

ormeau 1 wrote: »

I noticed the department of social welfare are now requesting that people produce a lease if they want to avail of jobseekers allowance. From my understanding of the law, a lease amounts to a property right and why someone needs proof of a property right to avail of social welfare bewilders me.

A guy I know who made a claim for jobseekers told me that he produced a bank statement and utility bill as proof of address. They then demanded that he produce a lease between him and his landlord.

Doesn't make sense.

Any link to this?first i've heard of it

seb65

ormeau 1 wrote: »

I noticed the department of social welfare are now requesting that people produce a lease if they want to avail of jobseekers allowance. From my understanding of the law, a lease amounts to a property right and why someone needs proof of a property right to avail of social welfare bewilders me.

A guy I know who made a claim for jobseekers told me that he produced a bank statement and utility bill as proof of address. They then demanded that he produce a lease between him and his landlord.

Doesn't make sense.

Was he claiming some sort of rent supplement?

ormeau 1

I don't have a link. He showed me a piece of paper which had a list on it. One of the requirements is a lease and a tick beside it. I will try to scan it later but just for now please assume that I am telling the truth.

ormeau 1

seb65 wrote: »

Was he claiming some sort of rent supplement?

No it was a sole application for jobseekers.

V.W.L 11

what happens if someone is living with a family member and aint renting???just happens to be living there???

PucaMama

Isn't it proof of address op

ormeau 1

PucaMama wrote: »

Isn't it proof of address op

Not if you don't have one.

seb65

Is he Irish?

ormeau 1

seb65 wrote: »

Is he Irish?

yes

PucaMama

ormeau 1 wrote: »

Not if you don't have one.

its there as an option for proof of address. I don't see how its an issue really.

Peregrinus

It's not a condition for claiming jobseeker's allowance that you should own or lease property in Ireland.

It is, however, a condition that you should have been habitually resident in Ireland for the past two years, and these days it's a condition they police fairly rigorously. Plainly a tenancy agreement or lease is the kind of document that you might produce in this context. Obviously if you're not renting property but own it, or are living with family or a partner, then you won't be able to produce a tenancy agreement; you'll produce something else to show that you do in fact live where you claim to live.

CIARAN_BOYLE

You have to produce some form of proof of address the list is of options and if one doesn't suit.

I handed in a esb to my parents and a letter from my parents stating that I was also resident at that address (witnessed by someone I forget who).

ormeau 1

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not a condition for claiming jobseeker's allowance that you should own or lease property in Ireland.

It is, however, a condition that you should have been habitually resident in Ireland for the past two years, and these days it's a condition they police fairly rigorously. Plainly a tenancy agreement or lease is the kind of document that you might produce in this context. Obviously if you're not renting property but own it, or are living with family or a partner, then you won't be able to produce a tenancy agreement; you'll produce something else to show that you do in fact live where you claim to live.

It appears as though the sw officer considered herself an expert on the law and demanded that the lodger show her a lease agreement when he hadn't one. She said to him that his landlord was 'breaking the law' by not providing him with one and wouldn't entertain him any further until he complied with her request.

Sounds as thought the swo is a moron considering he already provided a bank statement and utility bill with his name and address on it.

Peregrinus

If he's renting he should have a lease agreement, and his inability to produce one might give rise to a degree of suspicion in these suspicious times. Plus, his lease agreement would show when he started to live in the property (which the bank statement and the utility bill do not) which is relevant, since the test is habitual residence in Ireland for two years.

Despite the fact that he ought, in his own interests, to have a tenancy agreement, it's not actually a legal requirement that he should. If he is refused benefit on this ground he can appeal and, assuming he does in fact satisfy the habitual residence test and can show this by other means, he should succeed.

kristian12

Peregrinus wrote: »

If he's renting he should have a lease agreement, and his inability to produce one might give rise to a degree of suspicion in these suspicious times. Plus, his lease agreement would show when he started to live in the property (which the bank statement and the utility bill do not) which is relevant, since the test is habitual residence in Ireland for two years.

Despite the fact that he ought, in his own interests, to have a tenancy agreement, it's not actually a legal requirement that he should. If he is refused benefit on this ground he can appeal and, assuming he does in fact satisfy the habitual residence test and can show this by other means, he should succeed.

A part 4 tenancy is aquired after 6months so its quite common not to renew agreement and there is no legal or benificial reason for having a fixed term lease. Proof of address is all that is needed.

snubbleste

My own opinion is that the DSP/Revenue/PRTB are cracking down on unregistered landlords.

Kristopherus

ormeau 1 wrote: »

It appears as though the sw officer considered herself an expert on the law and demanded that the lodger show her a lease agreement when he hadn't one. She said to him that his landlord was 'breaking the law' by not providing him with one and wouldn't entertain him any further until he complied with her request.

Sounds as thought the swo is a moron considering he already provided a bank statement and utility bill with his name and address on it.

Thats BS. A client has to provide whatever evidence Welfare ask for to establish that they have an address. No evidence of address, no dole. Simple as.

And you calling a SWO a moron is kettle calling pot............

She was perfectly right in informing the client that the Landlord was breaking the law, because he was.

V.W.L 11

snubbleste wrote: »

My own opinion is that the DSP/Revenue/PRTB are cracking down on unregistered landlords.

Anything to get extra cash

snubbleste

Kristopherus wrote: »

Thats BS. A client has to provide whatever evidence Welfare ask for to establish that they have an address. No evidence of address, no dole. Simple as. ..

Evidence of address was already established. Client was asked to provide proof of renting, from whom, from when, amount paid and the written document purporting same.. That is excessive in my view.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ABajaninCork

snubbleste wrote: »

Evidence of address was already established. Client was asked to provide proof of renting, from whom, from when, amount paid and the written document purporting same.. That is excessive in my view.

Nope. Normal. I've had to produce my lease as well as further evidence of address, bank statements and so on. There's nothing new here, and I don't see an issue.

Carawaystick

SW refused to accept the deeds of my house as proof of address before, but printing out emailed utility bills were ok, well certain utilities, some fixed telephony utilities counted and some ( which had never been owned by the state) were not.

ormeau 1

Kristopherus wrote: »

Thats BS. A client has to provide whatever evidence Welfare ask for to establish that they have an address. No evidence of address, no dole. Simple as.

And you calling a SWO a moron is kettle calling pot............

She was perfectly right in informing the client that the Landlord was breaking the law, because he was.

There is no legal requirement for a lodger to have a lease agreement or a rent book. A lodger is not affected by the PRTA. To discriminate against him on these grounds is unconstitutional.

johnnyskeleton

ormeau 1 wrote: »

There is no legal requirement for a lodger to have a lease agreement or a rent book. A lodger is not affected by the PRTA. To discriminate against him on these grounds is unconstitutional.

Contrary to any particular provision of the constitution, or just generally unconstitutional? Is the department not entitled to determine which categories of persons ought to be given welfare?

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Give over. "Yer wan" must have a reason for requesting a tenancy agreement. She didn't just pull the idea out of her arse. If she is a Deciding Officer and feels she requires this info in order to make a decision on the claim, then there is nothing her superiors can do.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

ormeau 1 wrote: »

There is no legal requirement for a lodger to have a lease agreement or a rent book. A lodger is not affected by the PRTA. To discriminate against him on these grounds is unconstitutional.

It's not unconstitutional, that I can see, but it may be illegal, if the request for a lease agreement does not reflect a requirement in the Social Welfare Act to qualify for Jobseeker's Allowance.

Just to be clear, you say in the OP that he was asked to produce a lease agreement, but you don't say that he was refused benefit because of his failure to produce one. If he wasn't refused, he has no gripe. If he was refused, or if he is refused in the future, he has a right of appeal, which he should exercise. The conditions that he needs to satisfy to be entitled to benefit are set out in the social welfare legislation. He needs to produce evidence showing that he satisfies those conditions. He doesn't need to produce anything else. If this goes to appeal, the issue will be whether the failure to produce a lease means that one of the prescribed conditions has not been satisified.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How do you know she is being a jobsworth? Maybe shes spot on to be requesting a tenancy agreement. Would it be better if they were just flinging out our taxpayers cash to all and sundry, no questions asked?

ormeau 1

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Contrary to any particular provision of the constitution, or just generally unconstitutional? Is the department not entitled to determine which categories of persons ought to be given welfare?

Equality. Although the government is entitled to legislate in consideration of people's differences, a property right should not be one of those differences.

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not unconstitutional, that I can see, but it may be illegal, if the request for a lease agreement does not reflect a requirement in the Social Welfare Act to qualify for Jobseeker's Allowance.

Just to be clear, you say in the OP that he was asked to produce a lease agreement, but you don't say that he was refused benefit because of his failure to produce one. If he wasn't refused, he has no gripe. If he was refused, or if he is refused in the future, he has a right of appeal, which he should exercise. The conditions that he needs to satisfy to be entitled to benefit are set out in the social welfare legislation. He needs to produce evidence showing that he satisfies those conditions. He doesn't need to produce anything else. If this goes to appeal, the issue will be whether the failure to produce a lease means that one of the prescribed conditions has not been satisified.

She refused to process his claim until he produced a lease agreement. I advised him to download one from Irishlandlord.ie and sign it himself which he did. He didn't want his landlord to know he was claiming. He had already asked her for a letter to confirm he lived there, and the SWO said it wasn't enough and wanted lease agreements and rent books. Sounded like total nonsense considering he provided two valid forms, a utility bill and a bank statement.

I'm certain the SWO is in the wrong here. A landlord shouldn't be informed that a tenant is on SW. Quite frankly, it's none of their business.

ABajaninCork

ormeau 1 wrote: »

I'm certain the SWO is in the wrong here. A landlord shouldn't be informed that a tenant is on SW. Quite frankly, it's none of their business.

Wrong. The tenant is on SW. He is also likely to be claiming RA. If that's the case, sadly it WILL BE the landlord's business. For a start, he has to agree to taking the RA. And he also has to sign the forms. Even if the tenant wasn't claiming RA, then the fact they are claiming Welfare will probably impact on their ability to pay the rent.

The new forms are intrusive in the extreme and difficult to complete. All kinds of documentation is requested, and if it is not supplied, then the claim is refused.

So, no. The SWO isn't in the wrong here.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ormeau 1

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Wrong. The tenant is on SW. He is also likely to be claiming RA. If that's the case, sadly it WILL BE the landlord's business.

But that isn't the case. It's only a claim for jobseekers.

ABajaninCork

ormeau 1 wrote: »

But that isn't the case. It's only a claim for jobseekers.

Look. I understand what you're saying. I'm in the same boat. Do you not think the LL should be informed as a matter of courtesy? Especially if the claim isn't processed quickly (likely) and might have an impact on your friend's ability to pay the rent?

I don't see what your issue is. Welfare have been asking for lease agreements as proof of address for yonks. They won't take rent books. They won't take house deeds. Even before the current crackdown. A list of acceptable proof of ID and proof of address is clearly posted on the website and on the paperwork they give you when making a claim.

My husband's been laid off a couple of times. Even though we haven't moved, and our circumstances haven't changed, we have to go through the same crap every time. And that includes giving them a copy of our five year old lease! God knows how many copies of the same documents Welfare have now.

And if you don't supply what they want? Then the claim is refused and the claimant then has to go to appeal. More time and stress waiting for the claim to be resolved. Why add to an already stressful situation? Makes absolutely NO sense to me.

johnnyskeleton

ormeau 1 wrote: »

Equality. Although the government is entitled to legislate in consideration of people's differences, a property right should not be one of those differences.

So charging a higher rate of tax on higher incomes is unequal treatment as well? Same with property tax or motor tax?

Ok, even if it was unconstitutional, the effect wouldn't be that the person gets social welfare. A declaration of unconstitutionality would mean that no one gets social welfare regardless of whether they own property or not.

Hoffmans

a good number of swa offices are upgrading their it systems , linking up with dept of health, and enviroment , these new computers can cross ref your details on the press of a button checking your car details and lots of other stuff i question if this is an invasion of privacy or even constuitional

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Hoffmans

they want to know what you have for breakfast too,
but seriously its cross referencing and snooping on a grand scale, the idea is to check claimants locations and spending habits...