# Social Welfare-Means test-Property



## Debbie (16 Jul 2006)

Hi

Does anyone have any experience of having been means tested for a social welfare payment while part owning a foreign property.
I have read the figures on the website but am wondering if they can count the value of a 2nd property as means when 
1. There is a mortgage on half of it.
2. There are 2 names on the deeds and only one wants to claim social welfare
3.  It is not being rented out or making any money whatsoever and as it is on a 'building site' it is proving difficult to sell at the moment.
Any info would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## WizardDr (19 Jul 2006)

You will find that as it is a 'means test' that DCSAFF ignore the existence of borrowings, which is a serious flaw and will disadvantage you.

They also use off the wall 'notional' income calculations which bear no relation to the actual income.

I would go to Citizens Advice first before I made ANY appliction to them.

I dont want to sound negative, but this is a minefield.


----------



## Murt10 (21 Jul 2006)

I think this page may clarify things for you a bit.  It's quite complicated I'm afraid

http://www.welfare.ie/foi/meansassess.html#sect1

SECTION 1. PROPERTY deals with the following which seems relevant to your post.

CAPITAL AND PROPERTY NOT PERSONALLY USED AND ENJOYED.

PROPERTY OFFERED FOR SALE



Murt


----------



## Debbie (10 Aug 2006)

Thanks very much for that. Unfortunately I have already put it on my form and I will be going to hear the verdict tomorrow!
They don't make it easy do they?

Deb


----------



## bond-007 (10 Aug 2006)

WizardDr said:


> You will find that as it is a 'means test' that DCSAFF ignore the existence of borrowings, which is a serious flaw and will disadvantage you.


 
Surely unconstitutional and probably open to challenge.



WizardDr said:


> They also use off the wall 'notional' income calculations which bear no relation to the actual income.


 
Again I suspect it could be challenged on the grounds its against natural justice.


----------



## Debbie (10 Aug 2006)

thanks bond-007

Thats not a bad idea if I knew where to start!  I suppose I will see how I get on tomorrow and then comlain to someone ombudsmen or other if I dont get any money to feed my kids!


----------



## Thrifty (11 Aug 2006)

If you are refused you are entitled to a reply in writing which you can then appeal against. The CIC may be able to help you in preparing your appeal.


----------



## bond-007 (11 Aug 2006)

Thrifty said:


> If you are refused you are entitled to a reply in writing which you can then appeal against. The CIC may be able to help you in preparing your appeal.


You need to examine the written reasons in great detail in order to pick holes in their decision. I have come across some great errors by deciding officers in the past such as the discision form being completed incorrectly, wrong formulas used etc. The best one was where the person making the decision forgot to sign the form, which meant it had no legal effect. The upshot of that was that I got a claim decided by order on an appeal by a different  officer which was much better than the original discision. 

Good luck with it.


----------



## Debbie (11 Aug 2006)

Thanks All
You have given me hope and the will to fight my case.  I'll keep you posted!

Debbie


----------



## WizardDr (24 Aug 2006)

There are a number of practices with DSF&CA which if somebody had the legal background would be at the very least embarrassing. The one I am thinking of is the 'means test' where any borrowings one might have are excluded. Unconstitutional? Yes but there is little civil legal aid assistance available.

Also the 'state' is impervious to these things until they get dragged to the High Court and 'beaten into submission' (as a methaphor of course). And the more I meet the faceless bureaucrats, the less I think they even understand the new poverty that exists amongst the over 65s. (I am a mere younster) but I have dealt with some shocking bureaucracy shovelled out, which 'they' blame on Department of Finance. (I tend to agree with that)/


----------



## ClubMan (24 Aug 2006)

WizardDr said:


> There are a number of practices with DSF&CA which if somebody had the legal background would be at the very least embarrassing. The one I am thinking of is the 'means test' where any borrowings one might have are excluded.


I don't understand your point. Do you mean that, for example, an individual's assets and total liabilities be totalled and the difference considered their means?


> Unconstitutional? Yes


Is this actually true? Surely only a court can decide that? Have they?


----------



## WizardDr (24 Aug 2006)

Specifically if you are going for a means tested non contributory pension:

Your house is ignored;
they 'derive' an income from assets (nothing what so ever to do with what you actually get)
they do not take into account borrowings, period.

Does this strike anybody as fair ?

If your house is worth €1 or €50m?


----------



## ClubMan (24 Aug 2006)

WizardDr said:


> they 'derive' an income from assets (nothing what so ever to do with what you actually get)
> they do not take into account borrowings, period.


Do you have any examples of what sort of notional income they assess for a given asset amount?


> Does this strike anybody as fair ?


Perhaps not - I don't fully understand it yet - but is it unconstitutional as you claimed above?


----------



## hmmm (25 Aug 2006)

bond-007 said:


> Again I suspect it could be challenged on the grounds its against natural justice.


Why? The only issue I can see here is that the income they assign to assets may be incorrect, but there's no way we can have a "means tested" government handout where asset income is ignored. If the OP has a property that has provided significant capital appreciation (but not "income"), then it's only right that the taxpayer should not be subsidising their day to day expenses whilst they sit on a substantial appreciating asset.

The idea that borrowings are not taken into account is a valid point though I agree. It does sound inequitable.


----------



## ClubMan (25 Aug 2006)

But not necessarily unconstitutional?


----------



## Debbie (25 Aug 2006)

To HMMM

What if they have made a bad move and:
1.will have to sell at a lower price than they bought it for. If they can sell it at all as the market is slow.
2.have a full mortgage on it and loans so they stand to make a loss or if lucky break even.
3.have had to give up work to address many issues, children, finance reality.
4.have no tangible income so to speak but up to now have worked all their lives, but have paid non reckonable contributions.

This is the reality and it will make all the difference as to whether i can feed myself and kids due to the situation i have been left in.
It seems to me that certain areas and groups of people get social welfare without any hitches.  When it comes to the ones who try their best but then find they are in a situation they cannot temporarily control they are given not much help and have to fight for every penny.

Debbie

Debbie


----------

