The Court of Appeal has ruled that the Minister for Social Protection acted unlawfully by requiring a homeless jobseeker’s allowance applicant to prove she was currently residing in a particular Intreo Centre catchment area. It also found that the Minister had no appropriate process in place for receiving and deciding applications from homeless people.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Robert Haughton on 28 January 2020, concerned Kristina Kozinceva, a Latvian EU citizen who worked part-time in a shop in Stillorgan, County Dublin. Her allowance claim was suspended in April 2016 after work dockets were not returned on time, and later closed. She became homeless and sought to renew her claim.
In a letter on 14 September 2016, Clondalkin Intreo Centre told her solicitor the claim could not be reopened without evidence that Ms Kozinceva was living in the centre’s catchment area. The Court of Appeal said the letter did not expressly refuse allowance because she was homeless. But, considered alongside the earlier correspondence and a meeting with centre managers, it amounted to a failure to accept her renewed application or tell her where she could apply.
The court held that the legislation governing jobseeker’s allowance did not require an applicant to live in a particular catchment area. Requiring proof of current residence there from someone known to be homeless, as a condition of making a claim, was beyond the Minister’s powers and blocked access to the process for deciding her statutory entitlement.
After judicial review proceedings began, the Department processed a claim and transferred €2,450.20 to Ms Kozinceva in December 2016. The court therefore found her challenge to the September letter and the events leading to it moot insofar as the allowance arrears had been paid. It nevertheless decided the broader issue, citing the risk of recurrence and the public importance of a clear process for homeless applicants.
The court rejected her claim for further arrears and consequential financial loss because the estimates in the evidence did not establish the amount owed. Her counsel also did not pursue general damages.
The judgment does not record final orders being made. It states that, subject to hearing counsel further, the court was disposed to make two declarations: that requiring proof of residence in a particular catchment area was ultra vires, and that failing to have or publicise an appropriate process for homeless applicants was unlawful.