asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason arrears of disability benefit owed to a person (details supplied) in Dublin 1 were not paid to her; the reason the over-payments made to her husband were not deducted from his unemployment assistance; and if he can rectify the matter.
Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
186.
The person concerned claimed disability benefit at the personal rate only from 10 January 1989. Payment was authorised at the maximum personal rate from 13 January 1989, the 4th day of incapacity.
On 19 July 1989 the person concerned submitted a claim for half rate child dependant allowance in respect of four dependent children. Payment issued from 11 July 1989 only, as her husband had been in receipt of full rate child dependant allowance on his unemployment assistance claim.
The total rate of child dependant allowance payable in respect of the period 13 January 1989 to 10 July 1989 was £532.95. However, £440.20 had already issued to her husband in respect of the four children for the period 13 January 1989 to 27 June 1989. This left a balance of £92.75 which has been issued to the claimant.
187.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Wexford, whether it is intended to grant permission to sign retrospectively for employment credits for the period February 1988 to October 1988 which request was the subject of representations acknowledged by his Department on 22 May 1989 but not subsequently replied to.
The person concerned claimed unemployment benefit on 3 March 1989.
She had less than the required 39 contributions paid or credited in the governing contribution year (6 April 1987 to 5 April 1988), and did not qualify for payment of unemployment benefit. She was advised of her right to claim unemployment assistance, but did not do so.
She stated that she was unemployed during the period February 1988 to October 1988 and requested permission to sign retrospectively the unemployed register for the purpose of obtaining credited contributions for this period. She further stated that her failure to sign the register was due to misleading information she was given at the branch employment office. The branch employment office has no record of any contact with her prior to March 1989.
She was handed a letter by the manager of the branch employment office on 14 April 1989 informing her that her request to sign the register retrospectively had not been granted.
She inquired again by letter on 16 May 1989 regarding her entitlement to credited contributions. These presumably are the representations to which the Deputy refers. An acknowledgement issued on 22 May 1989 and in a reply dated 2 June 1989, she was again informed that her application to sign the register retrospectively had not been granted.
Unless the Deputy or the applicant have further information than that already provided, it is not proposed to alter the decision.