# Child Benefit Compliance



## pmurphy (19 Oct 2009)

We recently returned a child benefit compliance form to the relevant Department in Donegal.

The following month there was no Childrens Allowance payment. Having made a phone call I was told no form had been received and that our payment was to be suspended.

I was told to obtain a copy of letter from childs national school, bills, payslips to prove residency etc and forward them again to the relevant section. All done/posted.  No problem.

We have since been told that the payment 'might not be backdated'. We have not received payment since July.  We are extremely organised in terms of returning forms etc, I am 100% certain the original form was returned in good time. In fact I remember posting it.

Should I just hope for the best or are Child Benefit Section legally obliged to do anything?  If residency etc has been established on what grounds can they refuse payment? 

Many thanks


----------



## pmurphy (30 Oct 2009)

Just an update...

We have officially been docked 3 x Months child benefit despite proof of residency.

Any advice?.


----------



## alaskaonline (30 Oct 2009)

pmurphy - i feel for you and it makes me angry  how SW goes on like that. i know of 4 people (collegues) who received same form as me with a date on the letter that was two weeks previous. everyone who regularly receives these letters, knows that you have only 21 days to return the form.

i complained to the SW (not just about the date) and their reply only stated, that now i have to fill out these forms every 3 months. 

anyway, because the date on the letter was already from two weeks previous, i posted it by registered post to ensure i have proof it was delivered to them. it's annoying in a way cause it costs you extra but it gave me peace of mind.

if i'd be you, id keep writing/ calling them until you have written confirmation that the CB is reinstated and from then on, always do registered post! good luck.


----------



## Ceist Beag (7 Jul 2011)

Has anyone else had this happen to them recently? We just got a letter in saying our child benefit payments have been suspended as we did not return a survey that they sent us a number of months back - the problem is that we never received this survey! From reading up on it I presume they sent us out one of these Child Benefit Compliance forms. Luckily we were not on holidays when we got this letter as it states that we only have 21 days to return the letter along with some documents to prove our residency here - otherwise our benefit would be lost! Whilst I can appreciate the effort to stop benefit fraud, surely this is not the right way to go about it? How can they deny a resident what they are perfectly entitled to, even after they prove that they are entitled to it? And how can they put a timeline of just 21 days from the date on the letter to prove your residency? It smacks of a state desperate to avoid paying what they are obliged to pay out if you ask me!


----------



## dereko1969 (7 Jul 2011)

Do you not think the 21 days is there precisely to stop fraudulent claims? 

It's there to stop someone forwarding the mail on to the person claiming from abroad illegally.

People give out about waste and the State not cracking down on fraudulent claims, then when they do, the give out again.


----------



## Ceist Beag (7 Jul 2011)

21 days is not a fair length of time imho Derek. We could easily be on holidays at this time of year. And once the 21 days elapse, my understanding is that you have no right to appeal this. So even if you are perfectly entitled to the benefit as a resident, you could lose out as a result of this.
Just on your question Derek, I can't see how you would think 21 days is going to stop people claiming illegally? A letter can go abroad and back in just 4 days so that's a non argument. You have to prove you are a resident by providing documentation (employers letter, local GP details, utility bill) so this is the proof of residency.


----------



## bluemac (7 Jul 2011)

we had this misses forgot to post the letter took about 6 months to get back the payments ours was back dated, later they also wanted my 2007 accounts statement which took a while to get, I argued that what has that got to do with child benefit surely children born here working here with an irish parent get the benefit anyway, they had 2006 -2008 -2009 -2010 (which they had i didn't supply any of them)  so why do you need 2007,  My only thought can be that they have done a review on everyone and so when/if it become means tested they can implement it straight away.

on the up side we have not had a letter in a year from them,  It was a big pain, but you can see the need to do it..


----------



## txirimiri (7 Jul 2011)

I got a form in October with a 21 day turn around period. Sent it back on time.

In March, I noticed that I hadn't got my child benefit paid into my account. Called the Section. Apparently they had sent me out the same form again in December (didn't receive it as far as I can tell, but its just possible that my two year old found it before I did and posted it through the cracks in the floorboard - has been known to happen ). So had cut off my CB.

Was told to get a letter from my employer to prove I was still working in Ireland which I duly did. Four month delay. Finally got CB reinstated this week. Payment was backdated to March. Would have been pretty hard not to do so, as the letter from my employer was dated early March.


----------



## Ildánach (8 Jul 2011)

Anyone whose payment is stopped, or is not backdated, and disputes the  circumstances, should appeal.  

There are people who are receiving these forms EVERY three months, which  is ridiculous and there is concern amongst certain groups of people  that they are being unfairly targetted because of a perceived connection  with another country.  If anyone has such a concern, they should bring  their concerns to the equality authority.


----------



## boxplayer (3 Aug 2011)

I've just been told that I'm on a three or four-month cycle - despite being in a full-time permanent PS job (wife from abroad). I do think it is a form of discrimination, particularly against fathers who are from here, who because they have a non-national wife, have to take up their and their employers' time on a regular basis. So I will be going to the equality authority about this.


----------



## fifi g (5 Apr 2012)

I am a single mum and my child benifit direct debits stopped over a year  ago but i have only just noticed.  I called the child benifit agency  and they told me they had sent me two letters to confirm my address but  apparently someone returned them to sender and now they will only back  date three months.  The unusual thing about this is my single mother  friend has also had her CB stopped and has been given the exact same  expaination.   Has anyone else had the same problem?


----------



## gipimann (5 Apr 2012)

Where are you based, fifi?  Your use of the term "child benefit agency" suggests that you might be in the UK?   This is an Irish-based site, so you may not get a reply to your query.

If you are in Ireland, letters are issued regularly to many different customers regardless of their circumstances (single parent or not), and if they are not returned in good time, payments are suspended.


----------



## fobs (30 Jul 2014)

Received one of these letters today (30th) but letter is dated the 19th. Says to return within 21 days but has taken 11 days to get to me. Going on holidays next week so lucky to have received it before going.


----------



## card789 (31 Jul 2014)

Moving house shortly whats best way to ensure Department has new address for child benefit purposes?
Simply write to department with new address and pps numbers for child and mother?


----------



## priscilla (31 Jul 2014)

Yes, I don't think they accept the information by telephone.


----------



## vandriver (7 Jul 2015)

Old thread,but simple enquiry!
On the form,it asks you to fill in the child's school.As my boy has just left 6th class,and is enrolled in a new school for secondary from September, do I fill in the new school?
Edit:if you want to ring them from a mobile and not get hosed on the call charge,use *0749164496 *instead.


----------



## Chantilly (7 Jul 2015)

Yes indicate the new address, with schools closed soon they can only check in September.


----------



## bonnie1 (7 Jul 2015)

Just received one of these forms today.  Do they actually ring the schools / gp to check?  Or should I expect a further form for the school to sign?


----------



## vandriver (7 Jul 2015)

It's just the one form!


----------



## sailorswan (3 May 2019)

Received the letter yet again as I do every year. Fed up with this waste of taxpayers money !!! Whole family born and leave in Ireland and Irish citizens and still plage us...I suppose they have to find some way af keeping these overpaid government workers in employment.


----------



## Palerider (3 May 2019)

sailorswan said:


> Received the letter yet again as I do every year. Fed up with this waste of taxpayers money !!! Whole family born and leave in Ireland and Irish citizens and still plage us...I suppose they have to find some way af keeping these overpaid government workers in employment.



If that is all that is making you fed up with the waste as you say of taxpayers money well you ain't doing too bad.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (3 May 2019)

The current approach is extremely labour-intensive and time consuming for parents and civil servants alike.

In other countries they just match school records with benefits databases.

This would require the use of PPS numbers everywhere, and some Irish people cry 'nanny state' when that is proposed.


----------



## Folsom (3 May 2019)

It is an antiquated way of doing things.
One of the requirements for child benefit is to have the benefit paid into an Irish registered bank account. A simple electronic transfer from the bank notifying SW that the account is still active and that that activity is occurring in Ireland would end a lot of this.
Where the account is set up as a savings account with little or no activity other than the deposit of child benefit, then notification of an associated account active in Ireland could be agreed.
SW could, when sending out these letters request permission from the account holders to request this information from the bank. If agreed, then this would drastically limit the postage and the time-consuming labour in future, and more focus could be placed on activities that are considered unusual.


----------



## RedOnion (3 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> A simple electronic transfer from the bank notifying SW that the account is still active and that that activity is occurring in Ireland would end a lot of this.


You've no idea how banks systems work if you think that's simple.

And even if it were, there are so many ways around it.


----------



## Folsom (3 May 2019)

RedOnion said:


> You've no idea how banks systems work if you think that's simple.



I cant imagine it would be anything but that simple, but im willing to be enlightened.



RedOnion said:


> And even if it were, there are so many ways around it.



No doubt there is. Just as there are many ways around the current post system. 
I only suggested electronic notification on the basis that it could alleviate the time-consuming labour intensive postal set up, facilitating more intelligence based checks over random checks.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (3 May 2019)

@Folsom 

You would have big IT expenditure on all sides and lots of false positives and false negatives.

A better idea would be a system for schools to report on pupil registration three times a year (not sure if this already exists) matched up to the DEASP database via PPS numbers.


----------



## Delboy (3 May 2019)

And I'm sure GDPR would rare it's head in data transfers/comparisons like that


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (3 May 2019)

Delboy said:


> And I'm sure GDPR would rare it's head in data transfers/comparisons like that



You would probably need a new set of national legislation.

GDPR allows this once it's done properly. Many EU countries integrate health, education and welfare records better than Ireland.


----------



## Folsom (3 May 2019)

Delboy said:


> And I'm sure GDPR would rare it's head in data transfers/comparisons like that



Not if the account holders have given consent for the information transfer. Which I assume most would considering they have already given SW their bank account details and SW already own their PPSN. 
Unless of course they prefer to keep having to return postage checks each year.


----------



## Folsom (3 May 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> You would have big IT expenditure on all sides and lots of false positives and false negatives.



Im no IT expert but im not seeing where the big IT expenditures would be required. This would simply be a transfer of information from the bank, with consent of account holder, to SW providing simple information - is their activity on the account and if yes, is that activity inside the State?

Granted it may generate false positives and negatives.
But the point is that the automated technology is available to better target possible fraud and reduce time-consuming labour intensive postal systems. As some posters have shown, even though they have returned letters they have still been cut off for a period - a false negative in itself.
By using automated technology, SW should be able to better target households where it is suspected that child benefit is no longer applicable.
They already do it with other welfare schemes such as free tv license. SW can contact energy companies and request details of electricity or gas usage for a property to gauge whether anyone lives in the property.


----------



## gipimann (3 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> It is an antiquated way of doing things.
> One of the requirements for child benefit is to have the benefit paid into an Irish registered bank account. A simple electronic transfer from the bank notifying SW that the account is still active and that that activity is occurring in Ireland would end a lot of this.
> .



Not true - Child Benefit can be collected at a post office.
http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/3875_How-do-I-get-my-payment.aspx


----------



## Folsom (3 May 2019)

gipimann said:


> Not true - Child Benefit can be collected at a post office.
> http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/3875_How-do-I-get-my-payment.aspx



I stand corrected.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (4 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> Im no IT expert but *im not seeing where the big IT expenditures would be required. *This would simply be a transfer of information from the bank, with consent of account holder, to SW providing simple information - is their activity on the account and if yes, is that activity inside the State?



You would need a process for matching the data held in banks' systems with that of DEASP. Algorithms for flagging matches and potential discrepancies, interfaces for DEASP staff to examine them, etc.


----------



## Folsom (4 May 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> You would need a process for matching the data held in banks' systems with that of DEASP. Algorithms for flagging matches and potential discrepancies, interfaces for DEASP staff to examine them, etc.



The DEASP already have the PPSN (they issue it), they already have a bank account number (save those who collect at the PO). The bank obviously has the account number, and to open an account you need to provide your PPSN. 
If DEASP are sending money transfer into bank accounts, then the process for matching data is already in place. All that is needed is additional information added to what is already known.

Im getting the impression here that you consider that the current postal checks are more effective and efficient than what any IT data transfer and analysis could produce?

Perhaps someone with an IT background could make a suggestion?


----------



## RedOnion (4 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> to open an account you need to provide your PPSN


You don't have to provide PPSN to open a current account, unless applying for credit.

Plus, the use of PPSN is protected by legislation, so would require specific legislation to allow it to be used as you've suggested. In fact, the bank wouldn't need PPSN at all - DEASP would need to provide the accounts to be monitored to each bank. I'm going to ignore the data protection aspects.



Folsom said:


> Perhaps someone with an IT background could make a suggestion?


I already have. It's technically possible, but you're talking about massive spend. Somewhere around 100m+ across the banks and DEASP.
Even after that, it would be do simple to get around.
A far more effective solution is to legislate for the use of PPSN for all government related services, and include it on school roll systems, childcare schemes, etc.


----------



## Folsom (4 May 2019)

RedOnion said:


> I'm going to ignore the data protection aspects.



There are no data protection aspects if I have given my consent for my PPSN to be used in this way. 



RedOnion said:


> Even after that, it would be do simple to get around.



I wasn't proposing a panacea to child benefit fraud. Merely suggesting the increased usage of IT over postal services as a means to a more effective and efficient way of operating the scheme and monitoring fraud within the scheme.



RedOnion said:


> A far more effective solution is to legislate for the use of PPSN for all government related services, and include it on school roll systems, childcare schemes, etc.



Yes, these sound additional measures that could be used to better target fraud within the system.


----------



## RedOnion (4 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> There are no data protection aspects if I have given my consent for my PPSN to be used in this way.


It's not the use of PPSN that's I'm talking about (that's covered by legislation, not data protection).



Folsom said:


> Merely suggesting the increased usage of IT over postal services as a means to a more effective and efficient way of operating the scheme and monitoring fraud within the scheme.


Then just create an online form to replace the postal system. Far less expensive.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (4 May 2019)

It’s hard to see the issue with profiling based on nationality. If a child benefit fraud investigator targets 300 families, 100 of Irish origin, 100 of Polish origin, and 100 of Nigerian origin, it’s difficult to see how the hit rate won’t be higher in relation to the second and third grouping.


----------



## Folsom (4 May 2019)

RedOnion said:


> It's not the use of PPSN that's I'm talking about (that's covered by legislation, not data protection).
> 
> 
> Then just create an online form to replace the postal system. Far less expensive.



Which can be filled out where? Anywhere in the developed world?
The purpose of the postal letters is to confirm that you still reside at that address, in Ireland.


----------



## Folsom (4 May 2019)

Gordon Gekko said:


> It’s hard to see the issue with profiling based on nationality. If a child benefit fraud investigator targets 300 families, 100 of Irish origin, 100 of Polish origin, and 100 of Nigerian origin, it’s difficult to see how the hit rate won’t be higher in relation to the second and third grouping.



??? What does any of this mean? 

The issue is, unless im way off track, the inefficient postal checks for child benefit that see genuine recipients cut off because they didn't respond within 21 days because they were out of the country, or forgot, or the response got lost in the post, and how such a system is old hat. 

What you are proposing is racial profiling which would render the DEASP to accusations of discrimination. 
On the otherhand, if they issued 300 letters, with 270 going to Irish claimants, 20 to Polish, 10 to Nigerian etc, then that could be defended as proportionate profiling based on nationality and population, and not discriminatory.


----------



## RedOnion (4 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> Which can be filled out where? Anywhere in the developed world?
> The purpose of the postal letters is to confirm that you still reside at that address, in Ireland.


Have you ever actually seen one of these forms?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (4 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> ??? What does any of this mean?
> 
> The issue is, unless im way off track, the inefficient postal checks for child benefit that see genuine recipients cut off because they didn't respond within 21 days because they were out of the country, or forgot, or the response got lost in the post, and how such a system is old hat.
> 
> ...



Read the thread.

A previous poster implied that he/she was being repeatedly targeted due to perception.

Profiling based on risk makes sense.


----------



## cremeegg (4 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> What you are proposing is racial profiling which would render the DEASP to accusations of discrimination.



I am fairly sure this happens already. We get the compliance letter 3 or 4 times a year. We don't know of any other family where this happens. We have always thought it is because my wife is not Irish.


----------



## RedOnion (4 May 2019)

cremeegg said:


> I am fairly sure this happens already. We get the compliance letter 3 or 4 times a year. We don't know of any other family where this happens. We have always thought it is because my wife is not Irish.


It is already happening. I'm in same situation as you.


----------



## Folsom (4 May 2019)

RedOnion said:


> Have you ever actually seen one of these forms?



The child benefit form looking to confirm address and details? Yes, mywife receives one periodically.


----------



## Folsom (4 May 2019)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Read the thread.
> 
> A previous poster implied that he/she was being repeatedly targeted due to perception.
> 
> Profiling based on risk makes sense.



I beg your pardon, I hadn't read that post.

This looks like a strong case of discriminatory racial profiling based on nationality. It is not risk based if the claimant is within their rights to claim child benefit and has repeatedly shown that to be the case. This is typical of the inefficiency of the current system leading to false targeting of legitimate claimants, based on nationality.


----------



## Folsom (4 May 2019)

RedOnion said:


> It is already happening. I'm in same situation as you.



It looks like a strong case of discriminatory racial profiling. This is a waste of resources targeting legitimate claimants.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (5 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> It looks like a strong case of discriminatory *racial *profiling. This is a waste of resources targeting legitimate claimants.



It's *nationality*-based profiling, based on risk factors.

DEASP has no idea what race you are.


----------



## Folsom (5 May 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> It's *nationality*-based profiling, based on risk factors.
> 
> DEASP has no idea what race you are.



You are correct.

However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that the vast, vast, majority of a people who identify themselves with a nationality also identify themselves with that race.
There are of course many exceptions. 

However, technically, you are correct so what is occurring in some instances appears to be a case of discrimination based on nationality profiling.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (5 May 2019)

It sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Say your job is to find people who are claiming Child Benefit but living in a different country.

Of course you’d start with people who aren’t actually Irish.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (5 May 2019)

Ireland has very high migratory flows of people with children. As a result DEASP are particularly heavy handed.

We once moved abroad for a while. I was organised and got my wife to write them a letter in advance. She dated it 15 March and said something like "On 30 March I will leave Ireland with my child....".

They cut off child benefit from 15 March!

There followed a lot of phone calls and letters and in the end they re-instated the payment for half a month when we sent them copies of the flight tickets.


----------



## Folsom (5 May 2019)

Practically speaking, the only job there is to stop fraud of ineligible welfare claims, regardless of race, nationality, gender, etc

Using a claimants nationality is a tool that can be used in targeting fraud where there is reasonable information that suggests possible fraud being committed.

Given however, the blunt nature of profiling people by their nationality, and by the sounds of things, very little else, DEASP are opening themselves to accusations of discrimination against those of foreign nationality.
Im not suggesting that there is some evil seer at the top of DEASP deliberately targeting foreigners, regardless of the information in front of them.
Im suggesting that by default, the system is wholly inadequate, antiquated, and as a consequence, has morphed into an exercise that discriminates against people of foreign nationality _despite _the information already provided to DEASP.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (5 May 2019)

There is such a thing as taking PC nonsense too far.

The task is to identify people who live in foreign countries but claim Child Benefit in Ireland.

It makes perfect sense to target foreign people in the first instance.


----------



## Folsom (5 May 2019)

Gordon Gekko said:


> It makes perfect sense to target foreign people in the first instance.



And once a foreign person has been targeted in the first instance, and subsequently proves that they are still residing in this country, what then?
Send them another letter three months later based on their nationality? And once they subsequently prove they are still residing in this country, what then?
Send them another letter in three months time? And once they subsequently prove....?

See the point im trying to make?

Nationality is a tool that can be used to target possible cases of fraud...it is not a symptom of fraud. By repeatedly targeting individuals based on their nationality, and apparently not much else, it is providing grounds for discrimination.
And a terrible waste of resources.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (5 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> *And a terrible waste of resources.*



You'd only know that if you had access to their internal analysis.

I don't, and I suspect you don't either.


----------



## Folsom (5 May 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> You'd only know that if you had access to their internal analysis.
> 
> I don't, and I suspect you don't either.



True. Im only going on what has been put in front of me here - which is amounting to a terrible waste of resources, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## RedOnion (6 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> True. Im only going on what has been put in front of me here - which is amounting to a terrible waste of resources, wouldn't you agree?


So you're basing your opinions solely in what's posted to this thread?
Talk about a waste of resources...


----------



## Folsom (6 May 2019)

RedOnion said:


> So you're basing your opinions solely in what's posted to this thread?
> Talk about a waste of resources...



Specifically to the posts made in this thread, I have formed an opinion that suggests a process of discriminatory profiling based on nationality may be occurring. 
I am open to being dissuaded from that. But without access to the internal analysis of the DEASP - and there is no reason why I should have access, or if I did, I doubt if it would be for me to share on these pages, I can only base my opinion on what is put in front of me.

What, or whose resources are being wasted here?


----------



## RedOnion (6 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> What, or whose resources are being wasted here?


Sorry, you're far too modest. It's your brilliant mind I'm talking about being wasted.

Just from 3 anonymous posters, suggesting they are receiving more compliance requests than others because they / their spouse is a non-national, you've been able to deduce that DEASP is wasting resources. And that's without knowing anything else about their circumstances, or even having a cursory glance at the comprehensive annual report from DEASP detailing their fraud detection levels.

I really think you're on to something here.
Rather than trying to convince us mere mortals, you need to contact your TD, and get them to raise this as a parliamentary question with the minister for social protection.  It's the only way you'll get to the truth, and stop this waste of tax payers money.


----------



## Folsom (6 May 2019)

RedOnion said:


> you've been able to deduce



I haven't deduced anything. Where did I ever say that I was able to deduce that the DEASP is wasting resources?


----------



## RedOnion (6 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> I haven't deduced anything. Where did I ever say that I was able to deduce that the DEASP is wasting resources?


Here:


Folsom said:


> which is amounting to a terrible waste of resources


And here:


Folsom said:


> And a terrible waste of resources


And here:


Folsom said:


> This is a waste of resources targeting legitimate claimants


----------



## Folsom (6 May 2019)

RedOnion said:


> Here:
> 
> And here:
> 
> And here:



Oh dear.
Perhaps if you take my comments in their entirety instead of picking the snippets that suit your agenda, then the context upon which I made my remarks can be better understood?



Folsom said:


> This _*looks like*_ a strong case of discriminatory racial profiling based on nationality





Folsom said:


> It is not risk based *if* the claimant is within their rights





Folsom said:


> *It looks like*





Folsom said:


> so what is occurring in some instances *appears *to be





Folsom said:


> the blunt nature of profiling people by their nationality, *and by the sounds of things very little else*, DEASP are opening themselves to accusations of discrimination against those of foreign nationality.






Folsom said:


> *Im suggesting* that by default, the system is wholly inadequate, antiquated, and as a consequence, has morphed into an exercise that discriminates against people of foreign nationality _despite _the information already provided to DEASP.





Folsom said:


> By repeatedly targeting individuals based on their nationality, *and apparently not much else,* it is providing grounds for discrimination.
> And a terrible waste of resources.





Folsom said:


> I have formed an opinion that *suggests* a process of discriminatory profiling based on nationality _*may be *_occurring.



These are all qualifying statements that have deduced nothing. Other than *if* they are true, then it amounts to a terrible waste of resources.


----------



## SaySomething (7 May 2019)

I'm Irish and my husband is Irish. I receive these requests up to 3 times in a year. I simply fill them out and send them back.  It's not a major hassle, so long as I don't forget to post it. Part of the T&C of receiving the benefit is to meet the residency requirements so I'm happy to confirm them.


----------



## Folsom (7 May 2019)

That is all well and good, and its great you dont feel it as a hassle. But for how many years, and how many times have you filled out the forms?
Unless DEASP have some other information about you that suggests you may be committing fraud, then for what purpose are they continually spending their resources by selecting you? 
Unless you are moving regularly, it makes no sense to me and is indicative of the antiquated postal system. 
There is a lot more effective and efficient technology available these days to better administer this scheme and target possible fraud.


----------



## Blythe (2 Aug 2019)

Department seeks judicial review after watchdog rules child benefit data collection unlawful https://jrnl.ie/4748566

Always felt a bit uncomfortable with the information sought on these CB forms


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (2 Aug 2019)

In countries with more mature approaches the child benefit ministry is able to talk to the education ministry and share data. If a child stops attending school child benefit is stopped and the parent is contacted.

This depends on protocols for data-sharing and something like a PPS number being used routinely for all transactions with the government.

A much lower burden on the citizen (albeit a boon for IT contractors). 

Ireland is a long way from this.


----------

