Department of Social Welfare Inspector

DChang

Hi,

I was hoping somebody might be able to provide some advice on the following.

A bit of background.... At the start of this year I left my job to start my own business. I used my own resources/finances to carry out market research, business planning and prototype development. I applied for and qualified for Jobseekers Benefit and recently received notification that the benefit was due to expire so I would now have to apply for Jobseekers Allowance which would be means tested.

On the application I stated that I shared a house, that the relationship was "housemate" and provided the name of the housemate. (Due to the confidential nature and the stigma attached to claiming benefits I didn't inform my housemate of this).

My housemate is a female friend who just moved back to Dublin. I was living with my parents to reduce my startup costs and was renting an office in town. When I found out she was moving back to Dublin I suggested that we could share a house (means I could get out of my parents and cancel the lease on the office). We found a nice house and took out a 6 month lease. We have separate bedrooms, bathrooms, presses etc.

The following week I received a letter requesting financial documentation etc. and this was provided to the DSP promptly.

The other day I received a call from the local DSP office requesting a house visit. I agreed to this, set a time and date and asked what was the purpose of the visit. The staff member told me that she didn't believe that I share with a housemate and insisted that I was cohabiting. I informed her that this was not the case.

When the inspectors called to the house one of them immediately took out two A4 colour photos of me and my friend, handed them to me and said "explain this". I was taken aback. I had never seen these pictures before and asked where she got the photos. She said she downloaded them from Facebook. I immediately informed her that I do not use Facebook, nor any social media sites so asked how she got them. The inspector said she searched for my housemates name on Facebook and found them. I was absolutely furious. I said that obviously she searched for me, didn't find any social media traces so she then targeted my friend....alarm bells were going off in my head (data protection, privacy etc.) I was also furious that my friend had posted photos of me without me knowing. Anyway I insisted that we we're only friends, showed them the separate bathrooms, bedrooms and mentioned that two innocent photos didn't not prove anything.

When the inspectors left I called my friend and went nuts at her for uploading photos of me onto Facebook. I then had to inform her how I found out about the photos and that I was applying for state benefits.

My friend apologised for posting the photos and promptly removed them and terminated her entire Facebook account. She is absolutely shocked that the DSP had been snooping on her account, downloading, printing, copying and distributing her personal photos without her knowledge or consent.

I fully understand that while applying for assistance from the DSP I open myself up to scrutiny e.g. interviews, calls and internet searches to enable them to establish if a claim is false. I welcome this and I understand this has saved hundreds of millions in false claims but surely when no information was found about me on the internet the search should have stopped there then make contact with the housemate to seek further details/permission to search etc.

To me the very basic principle of of fair obtaining and fair processing of information has been breached in this instance. Can anyone on here shed any light on this or if anyone has experienced something similar please let me know.

hullaballoo

The things people post on Facebook and are made publicly available are unsurprisingly publicly available. The DSP and anyone else for that matter is perfectly entitled to access this stuff and the reality these days is that the law hasn't caught up with technology and there is nothing stopping your friend posting pictures of you either.

Sorry to hear that you feel your rights have been in some way interfered with, but they haven't. This is what 2016 looks like.

ohnonotgmail

what is it you want to know? you made a claim to the DSP and said you were sharing a house and not cohabiting. they investigated both of the people in the house. as they should. they accessed publicly available information. sounds to me like they did a thorough job.

DChang

Thanks for the replies
ohnonotgmail - a thorough job is one thing but to be accused of lying and having a decision hinging on two innocent photos is absurd. Even after I took them on a tour of the house and proved we were only housemates I felt like a criminal. On another note my housemate assured me that her account was private....

ohnonotgmail

DChang wrote: »

Thanks for the replies
ohnonotgmail - a thorough job is one thing but to be accused of lying and having a decision hinging on two innocent photos is absurd. Even after I took them on a tour of the house and proved we were only housemates I felt like a criminal.

you never mentioned an accusation of lying. from your post they had evidence that your claim of only being housemates was not correct. asking you to explain something is not an accusation of lying. It is giving you an opportunity to clarify the situation.

DChang wrote: »

On another note my housemate assured me that her account was private....

your housemate was wrong. that is nothing to do with the DSP.

newacc2015

DChang wrote: »

Thanks for the replies
ohnonotgmail - a thorough job is one thing but to be accused of lying and having a decision hinging on two innocent photos is absurd. Even after I took them on a tour of the house and proved we were only housemates I felt like a criminal. On another note my housemate assured me that her account was private....

Look at it this way. A few photos and a brief interview is often all emigration need to be satisfied that two people are a married couple. Why should it be different for the DSP?

The DSP were investigating a possible crime. How do you expect them to treat you?

Facebook are very strict about giving data to Governments. They only got about 100 requests for data off the Irish state last year. It is not an easy process to get data off them. I have a feeling your friend might not have had all her privacy settings are tight as she believed.

https://www.facebook.com/safety/groups/law/guidelines/

I am for one happy that the DSP is doing their job thoroughly.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

DChang wrote: »

Thanks for the replies
ohnonotgmail - a thorough job is one thing but to be accused of lying and having a decision hinging on two innocent photos is absurd. Even after I took them on a tour of the house and proved we were only housemates I felt like a criminal. On another note my housemate assured me that her account was private....

Regardless, it obviously wasn't private.

To be fair, someone who isn't used to applying for State Benefits isn't used to, or happy about, someone from Social Protection 'snooping' around, however, that's their job. If you've nothing to hide, don't be insulted.

I'm glad to hear they're taking their job seriously. Don't be disheartened or angry. Good luck with the business.

Addle

You're not a job seeker.
Did they not investigate that?
Should you be on the benefit at all?

DChang

Nope not a job seeker obviously.
Yes, several meetings with DSP regarding start-up benefits/grants etc
Yes, I want to apply for BTWEA grant however you must be eligible for JS Allowance before you can apply for it

Miaireland

Your housemate put the pictures online and the dsp were able to access them, sounds like her privacy settings weren't very good.

The inspector sounds like she is playing bad cop to be honest. Questioning you, accusing you of fibbing etc. Sounds like she was trying to see if you were tell the truth. Maybe people who lie would give themselves away under that can of pressure. You didn't as you were telling the truth.

I do wonder if you have the right to claim the benifit though. You appear to be working for your own company. Ok you are not taking a wage or making any money but don't they ask if you are doing any paid or unpaid work. Technically what you are doing is unpaid work.

Sorry ignore the last part. Our posts crossed!

hullaballoo

Self-employed people can get SW payments below a threshold and I've heard they make you jump through so many hoops it's not worth it for most people. Sounds like the OP is doing those jumps now and the best to him but this isn't the place for that discussion.

This is for discussing the legal issues above, if any. At the moment, I'm not seeing too many so this thread may have a limited lifespan and might be better suited to State Benefits or closure.

brian_t

An individual can work for up to 3 days per week while still retaining their jobseeker’s allowance or benefit. Once you still retain your entitlement to claim jobseeker's allowance or benefit then you will be treated as unemployed and eligible to claim this relief if you start a new business.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/reliefs/own-business-scheme/faqs.html#section4

DChang

All,

Thanks for all the feedback. I will close this off. hullaballoo is correct with them making you jump through hoops....and for very little money but it all helps at early stages. I 100% agree with the checking etc (over the years I have reported two cases of potential fraud) I guess Dr. Kenneth Noisewater is right when he said "someone who isn't used to applying for State Benefits isn't used to, or happy about, someone from Social Protection 'snooping' around". I suppose I like to be taken at face value. They came to my house, I explained my living situation, they said they don't believe it, I explained again, went through financials, lease agreement etc, again they said they were still suspicious so showed them around the house, wardrobes and the like.

Thanks again,
DC

jenny smith

Miaireland wrote: »

Your housemate put the pictures online and the dsp were able to access them, sounds like her privacy settings weren't very good.

The inspector sounds like she is playing bad cop to be honest. Questioning you, accusing you of fibbing etc. Sounds like she was trying to see if you were tell the truth. Maybe people who lie would give themselves away under that can of pressure. You didn't as you were telling the truth.

I do wonder if you have the right to claim the benifit though. You appear to be working for your own company. Ok you are not taking a wage or making any money but don't they ask if you are doing any paid or unpaid work. Technically what you are doing is unpaid work.

Sorry ignore the last part. Our posts crossed!

They are trained in interrogation /doorstepping techniques

lifeandtimes

I actually have a friend who works/worked in the department.
It is literally impossible for them to confirm you are cohabiting with a partner because to do that they would have to prove you are sleeping together and without any evidence of this,all the rest is circumstantial. Many people have clothes of other people at their home,items they are storing etc.
What the inspector was doing as they are all trained to do is,is trying to trip you up and see if you will slip out a detail (refer to your housemate as you girlfriend etc) so you'll admit it too them ans they report it back but as advised above without evidence of you two sleeping together they can't prove it unto law that you are cohabiting