The High Court has refused an application to quash a decision counting the full mortgage repayments made by an applicant’s former partner when assessing her means for One Parent Family Payment.
In a judgment delivered on 5 August 2020, Ms Justice Creedon held that the governing legislation allowed the repayments to be treated as housing costs paid by a liable relative. The court found that the decision maker had correctly interpreted the rules and had given adequate reasons for declining to revise the assessment.
The applicant, Deirdre Brennan, lives with her two young children in a home she bought jointly with her former partner. He pays the monthly mortgage instalment of €1,161.36, and she makes no contribution. She was receiving One Parent Family Payment of €190 a week.
A Deciding Officer’s 2015 decision counted the full monthly mortgage payment in assessing her means. After an appeal, the Chief Appeals Officer reviewed the case under section 318 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 and, on 7 November 2017, declined to revise the assessment. The officer said an earlier decision allowing only half of mortgage payments to be counted had no specific rule behind it and could not appropriately be applied in Ms Brennan’s case.
Ms Brennan argued that the mortgage payments should be counted only in part, or not at all, because the property was jointly owned and her former partner also benefited from the payments. She also argued that the distinction between “housing costs” and their “net cash value” required a different calculation, and that the decision did not adequately explain its departure from the earlier approach.
The court rejected those arguments. It found that the statutory definition of housing costs included repayment of a loan used to purchase the home in which a person lives. It also held that the legislation did not permit a deduction for any benefit the liable relative might receive from joint ownership. The court concluded that the full mortgage repayments were correctly used in calculating the non-cash benefit and maintenance for the means assessment.
The court also found that the reasons were adequate. The Chief Appeals Officer had explained that the earlier, more favourable calculation was not authorised by a specific rule, and the Appeals Officer had stated that the legislation required the full payments to be counted. The court refused the requested certiorari, leaving the 7 November 2017 decision in place. It directed the parties to correspond about the form of order and costs, with written submissions due within 21 days if they could not agree.