What is 'means tested'?

S

Super-Why

Registered User
Messages
14
Hi

Just a quick question regarding 'means'.

I am living in a friends house and not paying rent...can this be assessed as means? i.e. the value of rent €7,800 per year. Also, I use a car, which I do not own, but frequently use....can this be assessed as means? i.e. means of €5000 per year? I feel these figures have been hugely exagerated but this is the figure that was put on them in Benefit and Kind. Is this correct? I am only on One Parent Fanily payment.

I have recently won my one-parent family appeal and I just want to know what can be assessed as means.

Any help appreciated, Thanks
 
Thanks for the info Welfarite

I have spoken to the inspector dealing with my case since and when I brought up the issue of means assessing the car and house, he told me that he could assess these as means and he would proceed to do so. I am not sure what I should do now. This inspector is the same person that cut me off the OPFP over a year ago and was present during my appeal hearing. Things got heated during the hearing and I feel he has taken a grudge against me. I have asked a few times to speak to another officer in the welfare office during the past week but I am just told each time that he (the inspector) has the file and he is dealing with my case. What can I do?

Thanks
 
That is absolute nonsense; this from the guidelines for assessing capital....
'The house in which a person resides, together with furniture and personal effects is not assessed. Property must be capable of being sold, let or put to profitable use before a capital value assessment is applied.' A car cannot be asessed either and the SWI does seem to have a grudge agaisnt you. why were you 'discussing' the means outside of a means test situation? Why was is 'heated'?
 
Thanks again for your advice Welfarite.

He called me in to the SWO to discuss any earnings I had from the previous year, to calculate my arrears and he said he had to assess my accommodation and use of car as way of means. He was referring them to 'Benefit in Kind'.

The hearing got heated, as he was put under a bit of pressure from me and the Appeals Officer, about his fictitious reports and errors in his reports. I had evidence that the inspector made the decision to 'disallow' my payment and it was not the decision of the Deciding Officer. However, it was disregarded by the AO but he was still not happy about that. After the hearing, the inspector stormed out of the room without shaking hands to anyone in the room, including the Appeals Officer.

I really don’t know what to do now. I do feel there is a conflict of interest. If I request a different inspector to deal with my case, how do I know that he is not overlooking it? Would they even grant my request?

How can I challenge him with regards to the assessment of means? Can they be assessed as ‘Non-cash benefits’?

Thanks again.
 
The Appeals Officer is (and should be) an independent and rational adjudicator here. Have faith in them to be fair and to abide by SW law. Certainly, ffrom what you say, I stall can't see how a SWi can treat your accomodation or caqr under BIK as that does not apply to any SW rule I have ever heard of. Have you got a result of the appeal yet? If in your favour, then there will be no need to deal with the SWi or any other as that decision will have to stand. If against you, bring it to the attention of the Ombudsman. See here for the operational guidelines that are used for assessing means. These are the only thing that a DO can use when deciding a claim; you can make up your own mind as to whether they were used unfairly in your case!
 
Thanks again. The Appeals Officer has allowed my claim but it was only in allowance to the entitlement of OPFP. He did not refer to the means assessment. I suppose I will have to wait and see what happens and appeal it. Another long lengthy appeal, the last one took 14 months!!! I think I will go to the SWI and ask him to show me refernce in his guidelines allowing him to assess the means as he has done. Surely it would have to be written down in his guidelines?? If he cannot show me that then he simply cannot assess them. Am I right?
 
BTW, this is the only reference in the statute book I can find but I cannot really understand it. Would this be what he is referring to?

(2) all income in cash (including, in the case of widow's or widower's (non-contributory) pension, orphan's (non-contributory) pension and one-parent family payment, the net cash value of such non-cash benefits as may be prescribed), and the income received by a qualified child or qualified children that may be prescribed which the person may reasonably expect to receive during the year succeeding the date of calculation,
 
No way can your residence be assessed as a 'non-cash benefit'. If that were the case, everybody would be assessed as such! Never have I heard of a car being assessed this way either. I have heard of cases where people were driving top-of-the-range Mercs and they could not be disallowed because of that.
It sounds liek the SWI has a serious problem with you personally and is going thru every hoop to try and stop you getting your entitlements by assessing you over the limit.
I don't understand how the AO 'allowed' your claim for OFP and not means. Were there 2 decisions; one for means in excess and one for not fulfilling the conditions for OFP? Which disallownace did you appeal?
 
I was disallowed as he thought I was co-habiting. This is what the AO was deciding on. He did not assess the means even though these were discussed in detail during the hearing. So that snipit from the instute book regarding non cash benefits, what would these be? Free TV Licence? Benefits from the state? Thanks
 
Aha! This is totally different than means! There has been no means officially assessed if you were disallowed for co-habitation. Presumably the house and car issues relate to alleged co-habitation? Who owns them? If it is alleged co-habitee then this puts a different perspective on whole issue.
 
The alleged co-habitee owns the car. The house was owned by his mother. She passed away earlier this year and the house is been willed to her daughter. The house has nothing to do with him. I pay for my own insurance and diesel. Does this make a difference? Thanks again for your advice.
 
Have a look here re co-habitation rules; this is the central issue in your claim in that you must prove non-cohabitation, not SW proving co-habitation. I think the means issue is irrelevant at the moment.
 
Co-habitation is no longer an issue. I have been allowed my OPFP and it was proved during the appeal that I am not co-habiting. Like I say, the house in which I reside has nothing to do with the father and they are assessing that as means. However, the car I use does belong to him but I still cant see anything in the guidelines where these can be assessed as means. Citizens Information have been in contact with the SWI and he said 'that it is an Internal Policy to assess the means like this'. Public do not have access to this Internal Policy, that is why I cannot find anything regarding this on the SW website. Has anyone heard of this been done before?

Once again, thank you Welfarite for your advice. I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions.
 
Best thing then is to appeal the measn when assessed. Never heard of this 'internal policy' and all methods of assessment should be available to public. What headign did they use to categorise the house and car means on the assessment they issued to you?
Another issue here is that you should be disallowed twice at different times. A case arose where a person was disallowed on Habitual residence condition, won an appeal and was then disallowed on means. The dept was severely criticised over this by the Ombudsman, I think, as it appeared natural justice rules were breached; all decisions in relation to the claim should issue at the same time so that it is not seen that the dept. has a 'vendetta' against the person. It appeared that the dept were using every rule in order not to pay somebody. Your situation is very similar; reading between the lines the SWI seems determined not to allow your claim using wahtever means available. Keep us informed, you have a great case, I'd say!
 
Last edited:
Just a few side-bar observations ;

1. If I ever have contention with authority, in the broad sense, I always insist on them putting their decisions on an issue in writing. This tends to discourage the lazy bluffers with whom we might have to deal in both the public and private sectors alike. Once they find themselves obliged to explain a decision it can get difficult for them if they are in the wrong and this is the point at which they may find reverse gear.

2. In relation to the public sector please remember the Freedom of Information (FoI) acts. Social Welfare are subject to these acts. Under the authority of these acts you can apply for copies of records held about you. Applications for personal information are free of charge. Getting your file or records this way can be genuinely informative as it might give you a clearer insight in to how decisions about you were made.

It might be worth your while making an FoI application now especially if you are going to have ongoing engagement with the department about the same issue.
 
Hi...
Well, got my letter of means assessment and I am not being assessed on the house or car, only my income and maintenance. In the end I went to my local TD and he made a few calls and it was all sorted. Thanks for your advice :)
 
Thanks for update. Couldn't see how they could assess car and house. BTW, I don't think local TD could have influenced the Deciding Officer's decison, they operate independently of any outside influence. That's a big no-no in SW as it would lead to reps for all sorts of crazy decisions and accusations of corruption!
 
Super-Why said:
Hi...
Well, got my letter of means assessment and I am not being assessed on the house or car, only my income and maintenance. In the end I went to my local TD and he made a few calls and it was all sorted. Thanks for your advice :)
Click to expand...


What......:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top