The High Court has sent a rent supplement decision concerning Kevin McCormack back to the social protection authorities, finding that they failed to properly consider his financial support for his four children and their accommodation needs when visiting him.
Mr McCormack sought rent supplement after moving to Dublin following his separation from his wife. He had been assessed as eligible for social housing by Fingal County Council, but was told he was unlikely to receive a suitable home for several years. In August 2012, a designated officer awarded him the rate for a single person, capped at €475 a month, rather than the €900 he sought. An appeals officer later refused his appeal, saying the children’s accommodation needs were met at their mother’s home.
The Chief Appeals Officer upheld that decision on review in November 2013. The stated reasoning was that the children’s basic needs were met by their primary carer and that they were not dependent on Mr McCormack for support. He brought judicial review proceedings challenging the test applied to his claim. The court heard that the parents had joint custody and that their separation agreement gave him liberal and flexible visitation rights.
Justice Baker said “support” for the purpose of deciding whether a child is qualified under the welfare legislation means financial or material support, rather than emotional support. But she found that the decision-makers had taken too narrow a view of the financial relationship. Under the separation agreement, Mr McCormack transferred his interest in the former family home to his wife in provision for maintenance and accommodation claims for her and the children. The judgment said that this capitalised provision was relevant to whether the children remained financially dependent on him.
The court also said the authorities should have considered whether the children’s accommodation needs when staying with their father in Dublin formed part of the assessment. It stressed that judicial review concerned the legality of the decision-making process, not the merits of Mr McCormack’s application or whether the original result was factually right or wrong.
Justice Baker held that the decision-making process was flawed in law and remitted the matter to the respondents for further consideration. She said the reassessment could reach the same conclusion if it considered the factors identified in the judgment. The court did not decide the constitutional challenge, noting that the children were not parties to the proceedings and that the statutory scheme could be interpreted to take account of the relevant circumstances.