The High Court has refused Margaret Bracken’s application for judicial review of a decision counting her former partner’s mortgage repayments as a non-cash benefit when assessing her means for Disability Allowance.
Ms Justice Creedon delivered the judgment on 5 August 2020. The case concerned a house owned by Ms Bracken’s former partner, where she lives with their son. He paid the €647 monthly mortgage instalments, and she paid no rent.
A Deciding Officer’s decision of 16 August 2017 counted the mortgage payments in assessing Ms Bracken’s means. Her appeal was rejected on 7 November 2017. The Appeals Officer said the home was solely owned by her former partner, so she had no liability for the mortgage, and treated the payments as maintenance provided as a non-cash benefit. The officer also said a 2015 decision allowing half the mortgage to be disregarded in a different case was erroneous.
Ms Bracken sought a review under section 318 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. On 21 December 2017, the Chief Appeals Officer declined to revise the decision. Ms Bracken argued that the full mortgage payment should not be treated as the net cash value of her housing costs, and challenged the interpretation of the relevant legislation. She also relied on the earlier decision and argued that the authorities had not adequately explained their approach.
The court found that the mortgage repayments fell within the statutory definition of housing costs and could be treated as a non-cash benefit under Regulation 142 of the 2007 Regulations. It held that the respondent’s interpretation of “net cash value” was correct and that the full mortgage payments were correctly used in assessing means. The court also rejected the arguments that the interpretation created arbitrary unequal treatment or reflected a fixed, inflexible policy.
The judgment records that the respondent had separately accepted that a statutory disregard of €95.23 per week should have been applied. The respondent said the calculation would be adjusted and arrears paid. The court noted that this disregard issue was not part of Ms Bracken’s Statement of Grounds and was not the central issue it was deciding.
The court refused the relief sought: an order of certiorari quashing the Chief Appeals Officer’s decision. It asked the parties to agree the form of order and costs, with written submissions to follow within 21 days if they could not agree.