Written Answers Nos 51-70
51. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection if she will provide the names of the persons or groups who lobbied her Department to cease rent supplement in the Ballymun, Dublin 11 area as she referred to in a Topical Issues debate on 8 May 2014. [47361/14]
View answerThe Government decided in 1997 to approve the redevelopment of Ballymun and a regeneration programme commenced in 1998. The provision of rent supplement in the Ballymun designated area was identified by housing authorities as a risk to the tenure diversity objective of the project which is to achieve a more balanced tenure mix by providing additional private market housing.
In response to the concerns about achieving a tenure balance mix, Section 25 of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2007 provided that a payment of rent supplement can be refused in respect of accommodation which is situated in an area notified to the Minister for Social Protection by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, as being an area of regeneration.
The Department was advised that there was broad consensus on the need for the rent supplement restrictions in Ballymun to protect the significant exchequer investment in the area. Dublin City Council engaged with elected representatives in relation to this matter and there was consultation with Ballymun Regeneration Limited. The payment of rent supplement was also identified as an issue which could undermine the policy of reducing social segregation by the Ballymun Neighbourhood Council, which included representatives from local residents, political representatives and local agencies including Dublin City Council and Ballymun Regeneration Limited.
It should be noted that the measures provided for in Section 25 are not a blanket refusal of rent supplement in areas of regeneration. Specific provision is made to ensure that:
- people already residing in such areas and in receipt of rent supplement may continue to receive payment; and
- people already residing in such areas in private rental accommodation and who may have recourse to rent supplement in the future would not have their entitlement restricted.
The lifting of the condition for rent supplement with respect to the Ballymun regeneration area is a matter for my colleague the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government.
53. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection her plans to make changes to the TÚS scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [47372/14]
View answerTús, the community work placement initiative introduced during 2011, was established to provide short-term, quality work opportunities for those who are unemployed for more than a year. As of the week ending 5 December 2014. 7,892 jobseekers are engaged on Tús. Since its commencement some 23,000 jobseekers have participated on this initiative.
A key feature of Tús is that selection is undertaken by random processes conducted at local level by the Department. The selection is focused on those on the Live Register for a year or more and in receipt of a jobseeker’s payment who have more limited job or work placement opportunities. In all cases, the implementing bodies engaged by the Department to work with community organisations at local level have regard to the participant’s suitability to work in the delivery of local services, including those involving vulnerable adults or children.
The operation of all schemes funded by the Department are monitored with a view to making any necessary improvements and to ensure they operate to take account of any changes arising on other schemes or policy initiatives.
54. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection if persons who have worked up their contribution pensions over numerous years will be effected by the new pension system coming into effect; if she will confirm that workers who have built up their contributions that their pensions will be protected by the regulations in place when they commenced their contributions; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [47379/14]
View answerThe State pension is a very valuable benefit and is the bedrock of the Irish pension system. Therefore, it is important to ensure that those qualifying have made a sustained contribution to the Social Insurance Fund over their working lives and the reform measures introduced to date go somewhat toward that goal. To ensure that the individual can maximise their entitlement to a State pension all contributions paid over their working life from when they first enter insurable employment until pension age is taken into account when assessing their entitlement and the level of that entitlement.
Since 1961, when contributory pensions were first introduced, the average contributions test has been used in calculating pension entitlement. Therefore, to qualify for a state pension a person must:
- have at least 520 paid contributions and
- satisfy a yearly average (a yearly average of 48 is required for a full rate pension).
There have been significant changes to the PRSI system over the years which have increased social insurance coverage to most classes of working people. Accordingly, under the pension reform programme, it is planned to adopt a total contributions approach where the number of contributions paid over a work life will more closely reflect the rate of pension payment received. For example, in a model where 30 years contributions (1560) would qualify a person for a maximum State pension (contributory), a person could accumulate 1/30th of a pension for each year of contributions up to a maximum of 30/30ths, inclusive of a certain number of credits.
The proposed date for the introduction of a move to a total contributions approach is 2020, but this may be subject to change as it is a very significant reform with considerable legal, administrative and technical challenges to be overcome in its implementation.
It should be noted that the pension system has evolved over decades, largely to the benefit of pensioners, and that it has generally been the case that the system at retirement is the one used to calculate pension rates, rather than the rules that pertained when they commenced employment. Accordingly, while it isn’t possible to be definitive about the potential impact of changes on individuals, I can assure the Deputy that contributions paid and credited under existing rules will continue to be used as part of the calculations in a new approach.
59. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection if her attention has been drawn to the fact that long term sick claimants of illness benefit supports are not permitted to avail of the Christmas bonus announced recently for unemployed recipients; her plans to widen the Christmas bonus qualifying criteria for persons claiming illness benefit for up to eight years and more; if she will widen the fuel allowance scheme to allow these claimants to avail of equal treatment than those availing of unemployment supports; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [47458/14]
View answerThe Christmas bonus was paid last week to over 1.2 million long-term social welfare recipients at a cost of €65 million. The Bonus was introduced in 1980 and paid annually (at varying rates) until it was abolished in 2009.
I was pleased to be in the position to partially restore the bonus this year. A 25% bonus (subject to a minimum payment of €20) was paid to the beneficiaries of all schemes to which the bonus previously applied. It should be noted that illness benefit was never eligible for the bonus in the past and this condition continues to apply this year.
Persons who are permanently incapable of work may be eligible for the non-means tested Invalidity Pension (subject to satisfying the relevant medical criteria). Persons who are substantially restricted in undertaking suitable employment arising from a medical condition may be eligible for the means tested Disability Allowance (subject to the relevant medical criteria). All recipients of both of these payments are eligible for the Christmas Bonus, as well as additional benefits including free travel and the household benefits package.
Furthermore, they may also be eligible for the fuel allowance (subject to satisfying the household composition conditions and the means test).
61. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection if her attention has been drawn to the fact that persons who have been continuously unemployed for more than the 391 cumulative-paid total days are required to avail of the Christmas bonus, due to the fact that they are no longer part of another person's claim; if this qualifying period of 391 days will be assessable against joint claims; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [47467/14]
View answerThe Christmas Bonus was paid last week to over 1.2 million recipients at a cost of €65 million. The Bonus was originally introduced in 1980 for certain recipients and extended to long-term jobseekers in 1985. The bonus was paid annually until it was abolished in 2009.
I was pleased to be in a position to partially restore the bonus this year. A 25% bonus (subject to a minimum payment of €20) was paid to the beneficiaries of all schemes to which the bonus previously applied.
In order to receive the bonus, a person must have been in receipt of a jobseeker’s allowance payment for 391 days, including any time spent on jobseeker’s benefit. The 25% bonus applies to the recipient’s weekly social welfare payment including any increases for a qualified adult and/or for qualified children. For example, a long-term unemployed jobseeker with no means, in receipt of a personal rate, a qualified adult rate and with two child dependants, would receive a bonus of €93.10.
Where both members of couple are individually in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance, eligibility for the bonus is based on the individual duration of each member of the couple on a jobseekers payment. Thus, a bonus is paid to each member of the couple provided both (individually) have a duration of 391 days or more, to one member where one has a duration of 391 days or more and to neither member where both (individually) have a duration of less than 391 days.
Time spent as a qualified adult on another person’s jobseeker’s payment is not counted, for bonus purposes, in order to determine the duration on a jobseeker’s payment. These arrangements are unchanged since the bonus was first introduced for long-term jobseekers.
62. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection her views on a matter regarding employment in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [47489/14]
View answerSocial Welfare legislation provides that all claimants for jobseeker’s benefit who are employed on a part-time basis must suffer a substantial loss of employment. A substantial loss is sustained if a person’s normal level of employment is reduced by at least one day with a consequent loss of earnings.
The person concerned exhausted his entitlement to jobseeker’s benefit on 18 October 2014. The person’s normal level of employment was 2 days per week. He re-applied for jobseeker’s benefit from 20 October 2014.
Under the current Social Welfare legislation the person concerned was deemed by a Deciding Officer not to have suffered a substantial loss of employment. The person is only entitled to payment of jobseeker’s benefit any week he works less than 2 days.
The person was notified of this decision and of his right of appeal.
63. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection if the social welfare scope section in the period 2000 to date made decisions whereby family members employed in the particular family company were insurable at class S or class M; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [47496/14]
View answerThe Scope Section of my Department makes decisions on the insurability of employment on an ongoing basis, including the insurability of family members.
If the Deputy can supply my Department with the details of the specific case to which he is referring, I will be happy to have the matter looked into.
64. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 223 of 2 December 2014, the reason a ten year licence was provided to the company (details supplied), despite the fact that at a time the Financial Regulator had evidence of malpractice in their possession; and the avenue that is open to a citizen to pursue this further. [47373/14]
View answerDue to the confidentiality requirements imposed by domestic and EU legislation which provides for confidentiality of information and limits disclosure to circumstances specifically provided for in the Central Bank Act 1942, the Central Bank advise me that it cannot comment on its engagement with specific entities.
If the individual concerned has not already done so, they may wish to make a complaint to the Financial Services Ombudsman. Details of how to make a complaint are available on the Ombudsman's website at https://financialombudsman.ie/make-a-complaint/ .
Alternatively I would advise the individual to seek independent legal advice on the best course of action to pursue.
65. Deputy Brian Walsh asked the Minister for Finance the penalties, interest and surcharges applied by the Revenue Commissioners where a person or company is late in filing his, her or its accounts; his views that these are reasonable or if there are plans for a review. [47442/14]
View answerI am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that where an individual or a company file their tax return late, a surcharge known as a late filing surcharge applies. The current rate of surcharge for late filing of Income Tax and Corporation Tax returns is:-
- 5% of the tax due subject to a maximum of €12,695 where the return of income is delivered before the expiry of 2 months from the specified return date for the chargeable period, or
- 10% of the amount of tax due subject to a maximum of €63,485, where the return of income is not delivered before the expiry of 2 months from the specified return date for the chargeable period.
I am also advised that up until recently certain accounts details were an integral part of Income Tax and Corporation Tax returns and relevant accounts information was provided on the appropriate tax return.
Since November 2012, taxpayers have had the option to file separate financial statements in iXBRL format using Revenue's Online Service (ROS). iXBRL (inline eXtensible Business Reporting Language) is a language which allows financial information to be communicated and presented in a format that may be recognised and read by both people and computers. A mandatory requirement to file iXBRL financial statements as part of a tax return now exists on a statutory basis and, in line with the approach that Revenue took with e-filing, this is being introduced on a phased basis. To date, the mandatory regime applies only to larger companies. During later phases, all companies, as well as individuals, will come within the mandatory regime. In the meantime, individuals, and companies not covered by the mandatory regime, continue to provide certain accounts details in their appropriate tax return form. To allow for the transition to the mandatory regime, I am informed that Revenue has made certain concessions for taxpayers on the filing deadline for the submission of the iXBRL financial statements.
I am further advised that a late filing surcharge also applies to Local Property Tax (LPT) returns. Where a person who is liable for LPT files a return for income tax or corporation tax and, at the time of filing the income tax or corporation tax return they have failed to file their LPT return and make their LPT payment as due, a surcharge of 10% of the amount of income tax or corporation tax payable will be applied. If the liable person becomes LPT compliant the surcharge will be capped at the amount of the LPT liability.
Regarding penalties, I am advised, that where a person fraudulently or negligently delivers an incorrect return on time that return is deemed to have been delivered late and the surcharge for late filing is applied. However, where, in the context of a Revenue compliance intervention, a tax geared penalty is applied by Revenue under section 1077E Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 on the additional tax arising due to the fraud or neglect it has been Revenue practice not to seek an additional late filing surcharge in these circumstances. In the current Finance Bill I have placed that Revenue practice on a legislative footing.
With reference to the charging of interest, I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that interest is charged on late payments and is not related to timely filing. The current rates of interest on late payments are 8% per annum or 0.0219% per day, on overdue income, corporation, capital gains taxes or stamp duty, and 10% per annum or 0.0274% per day in respect of overdue VAT and Employers PAYE/PRSI. The rates were reviewed in the Finance Act 2009 and were reduced then from 10% and 11.7% per annum to the current rates of 8% and 10% as outlined above.
The self-assessment system provides for sanctions to address non-compliance relating to timely tax return filing and payment. These sanctions, as well as other factors, help to maximise the levels of voluntary compliance and their impact is borne out by the fact that the overwhelming majority of taxpayers file and pay their taxes on time.
The late filing surcharge is designed as a deterrent and encourages timely filing and payment. I am pleased to see that compliance levels are increasing annually and any measure that might impact would need very careful deliberation.
It is my view that the sanctions provided for in legislation are proportionate and reasonable and they are applied fairly by the Revenue Commissioners. On that basis I have no plans to review the late filing surcharge and other similar sanctions.
66. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for Finance his plans to reform the property tax so that a person's ability to pay is taken into account; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47455/14]
View answerIn designing the Local Property Tax (LPT), due regard was given to issues such as ability to pay. The Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2012, as amended, provides for the possibility of deferring the charge to LPT in certain circumstances to assist individuals who may have difficulty paying the tax. To qualify for a deferral, the residential property must be occupied as a sole or main residence. The gross income thresholds for a full deferral are €15,000 for a single person and €25,000 for a couple, whether married persons, civil partners or qualifying cohabitants. A person may claim a deferral if their gross income will not, "as can reasonably be foreseen at the liability date" exceed these thresholds in that year.
A deferral of up to 50% of the LPT liability will be possible where the gross income of the liable person does not exceed €25,000 for a single person or €35,000 for married persons/civil partners/cohabitants.
The full and partial deferral thresholds may be increased in the case of properties occupied as a sole or main residence and subject to a mortgage. In such cases, the gross income thresholds may be increased by 80% of the mortgage interest payments. The deferral option in such qualifying cases will apply until the end of 2017.
Interest of 4% per annum will apply to any amounts deferred. Where a liable person no longer satisfies the necessary conditions, amounts deferred prior to the date on which eligibility ceased may continue to be deferred. The deferred amount, including interest, will attach to the property and will have to be paid before the property is sold or transferred. Any amount deferred will be a relatively small part of the overall value of the property, even where the deferral lasts for a number of years.
The LPT legislation also provides for the possibility of a deferral for liable persons who cannot without excessive hardship pay their LPT when it becomes payable, as a consequence of a significant and unexpected financial loss or expense. Further information on this deferral option, including Revenue Guidelines, is available from: http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/lpt/hardship-grounds.html
Where a liable person does not qualify for, or does not wish to avail of, a deferral, phased payment of LPT can be used to assist with budgeting. Taxpayers have a wide choice of payment options for the LPT from which they can choose the method most suited to their individual circumstances.
67. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Finance the number of complaints of petrol-stretching in counties Mayo, Roscommon, Galway and Leitrim, received by the customs and excise service in each of the months since June 2014; the number which were investigated and the number which are ongoing in each county; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47462/14]
View answer68. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the steps being taken to deal with the issue of petrol stretching; if the Revenue Commissioners resources have been allocated to the problem; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47474/14]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 67 and 68 together.
I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners, who are responsible for tackling fuel fraud, that they are very aware of the risks posed to consumers' vehicles, legitimate businesses and the exchequer by all forms of such fraud.
Revenue has, over the recent past, received reports from a variety of locations around the country of problems relating to petrol quality, and suggestions that these problems are attributable to petrol stretching. Revenue investigates all complaints of this kind and Revenue officers have visited and taken samples from every filling station about which a complaint has been made about fuel contamination, and these samples have been referred to the State Laboratory for analysis.
In regard to the Deputies questions regarding complaints, I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the numbers of complaints of this kind received by Revenue in counties Mayo, Roscommon, Galway and Leitrim in the period since June 2014 is 72, comprised of 1 in July, 7 in August, 18 in September, 24 in October, 17 in November and 5 to 5 December 2014. An analysis of the complaints on a county basis is set out in the following table. Enquiries into these complaints are on-going.
Complaints Received in Relation to Petrol Stretching
|
County |
July |
August |
September |
October |
November |
December (to 5th) |
|
Mayo |
0 |
4 |
10 |
12 * |
11 * |
3 |
|
Roscommon |
0 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
|
Galway |
1 |
0 |
3 |
8 |
5 |
0 |
|
Leitrim |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the statistics provided to me in relation to complaints made in Co. Mayo, and included in my reply to PQ No 45780/14 on 2 December 2014 were in fact incorrect, and that the correct figures are shown in the above table. The Commissioners advise me that the error in the previous figures arose because of some duplicates in the Revenue database of complaints received, and because some complaints were attributed to the incorrect county. I am assured that these database errors have now been corrected and I am pleased to avail of this opportunity to amend the record.
Normally when 'fraudsters' attempt to stretch petrol, they add methanol, kerosene or other low excise duty agents. To-date 208 samples have been referred by Revenue to the State Laboratory for analysis. Despite extensive testing by the State Laboratory, no evidence of any prohibited stretching agent has been found in any of the samples, except two samples taken from one site. The conclusive results received in that particular case has resulted in the seizure of the product and closure of the facility and a file is being prepared for prosecution.
Following a series of further tests conducted by the State Laboratory, results have been received in the last two weeks which indicate the presence of traces of road diesel in several samples taken from a variety of locations. This could indicate that petrol was contaminated with road diesel at some point in time. There is no rational economic reason or fraudulent incentive for anyone to deliberately mix normal road diesel with petrol. This contamination could have taken place earlier in the summer, well ahead of the problems manifesting themselves in cars in Co. Mayo and elsewhere.
If the problems that have come to light were caused by an unintended contamination as a result of diesel being inadvertently mixed into petrol at some point along the supply chain, there would be no Revenue offence involved. However, the Deputies can be assured that the Revenue Commissioners are vigorously investigating the possibility of tax fraud being associated with the identified problems. In any instances where the analysis of petrol samples by the State Laboratory indicates the presence of illegal stretching agents, Revenue will take swift and robust action and pursue prosecutions against offenders where possible.
I am also advised by Revenue that they undertake, on an ongoing basis, an extensive programme of compliance and enforcement actions to ensure adherence to the legal requirements governing the supply and sale of mineral oil and to allow action to be taken against fraud. This involves, among other things, carrying out analysis of the monthly oil movement returns that oil traders are required to make, and of other supply chain data. In addition, Revenue officers conduct control or compliance visits to mineral oil traders, during which they examine transport and movement documentation and take samples of fuel for analysis.
The Revenue Commissioners are working closely with An Garda Síochána and share information and intelligence on this issue. Also, as part of Revenue's normal operating procedures, fuel delivery tankers are challenged when encountered by enforcement officers, particularly throughout the Border Midlands West Region. No cases of contaminated petrol have been identified as a result of these checks from June 2014 to date.
I wish to assure the Deputies that I am satisfied the Revenue Commissioners are allocating resources to this issue and taking all possible actions to identify the problem and challenge any instances of identified fuel fraud including, where possible, pursuing prosecutions against offenders.
69. Deputy Dan Neville asked the Minister for Finance the position regarding property tax name change in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Limerick; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47476/14]
View answerI am advised by Revenue that the issues to which the Deputy refers occurred because the property was registered for Local Property Tax (LPT) using the PPS number of the deceased spouse of the person in question. The registration, which was completed by a family member through the LPT online system resulted in all of the various notifications and payment reminders being issued in the name of the deceased person.
Revenue has also confirmed to me that it has already been in contact with a son of the person in question on foot of the various outstanding issues and explained that she could not be linked to the property in her own right as her PPS number is in an 'older style' format that is incompatible with current IT systems.
For the Deputy's information these 'old style' PPS numbers were generally assigned to a female spouse on marriage and were configured by adding the letter 'W' to the husband's PPS number.
Revenue's understanding was that the person in question, or her 'designated DSP agent' (DSP can only deal with the designated person on file), would contact the 'Client Identity Section of the Department of Social Protection (DSP)' to request a new PPS number, which the LPT team could then 'link' to the property in question. However it seems that neither the person nor the 'designated DSP agent' have yet made this request and as a consequence the LPT team can not make the necessary amendments.
Because of the circumstances of the case, a member of the LPT team has made a further number of unsuccessful attempts to contact the person's son by telephone to clarify the issues. Given that telephone contact has not been possible, the LPT team will write directly to the person advising on the procedures that must be followed when acquiring a 'new style' PPS number from DSP. As soon as the person receives the new PPS number from DSP then she or her representatives should make immediate contact with the LPT team who will create the correct linkage to the property and will set up her preferred payment methods.
70. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the progress that has been made in respect of the liquidation of Setanta Insurance; if those caught up in outstanding claims are facing any losses; the role of the Insurance Compensation Fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47482/14]
View answerAt the outset I would like to say that I am aware of the difficulties that the liquidation of Setanta Insurance Company Limited has caused for Setanta policyholders and those claiming compensation under Setanta insurance policies. You will appreciate that a liquidation of an insurance company is a legally complex and time consuming process. The situation around the Setanta liquidation is an evolving one and so I propose to set out the position as it currently stands.
The Insurance Compensation Fund (ICF) provides for payments to meet the liabilities of insolvent insurers in certain cases where it is unlikely that claims can be met otherwise than from the ICF. Management and administration of the ICF is under the control of the President of the High Court acting through the Office of the Accountant of the Courts of Justice. Under the Insurance Act 1964, in a liquidation all ICF payments are subject to a limit of 65% of the amount due or €825,000, whichever is the lesser. In addition, claims by bodies corporate or unincorporated bodies are not covered by the ICF, except where there is a liability to or by an individual.
The Accountant, the Liquidator and the State Claims Agency are in the process of agreeing procedures for payments and these will be published as soon as they are agreed. I am informed by the Accountant and the Liquidator that the following recent progress has been made:
- Based on the information available to the liquidator it is not likely that he will be in a position to meet more than 30% of the insurance claims out of the assets in liquidation.
- Therefore, on the basis that the ICF may only pay out up to a maximum of 65% on an eligible individual claim, the question of the possibility of advance payments of 65% on eligible claims to the ICF was examined by the Accountant. The Accountant obtained clarification on the question of whether he could make advance payments of 65% to eligible claimants. He has informed us that having considered legal advice on the operation of the legislation, he is now satisfied that it is appropriate to make applications to the President of the High Court for approval to release monies from the ICF for compensation, prior to completion of the liquidation of the company. Any payment from the ICF will be a once off and final payment.
- The State Claims Agency will provide support to the Accountant in terms of the necessary expertise to ensure that only valid claims are paid out of the ICF and administrative support required to deal with the volume of work arising from the Setanta case.
- The Liquidator has advised that he is aiming to make application to the ICF for outstanding claims early in the New Year 2015 in respect of the following categories of claims:
- Claims where settlements have been agreed between Setanta and the claimant;
- Claims where the Personal Injuries Assessment Board has issued Orders to Pay that have been accepted by Setanta and the claimant;
- Claims which have been subject to court awards.
- The Accountant has advised that he is aiming to make application in respect of this first batch of 300 claims to the President of the High Court before end of March 2015.
Current estimates indicate that the shortfall for most Setanta claimants will be relatively small once they have received the 65% compensation available from the ICF as well as their distribution from the Liquidation. I understand that there is the very small number of large claims where the maximum ICF payment of €825,000 will apply. There is a number of claims by bodies corporate or unincorporated bodies which are not covered by the ICF as there is no liability to or by an individual and these policyholders might anticipate at a maximum 30% of the total amount of any award under the claim. It is not as yet possible for the Liquidator to provide a final figure on the number of such claims.
I appreciate that the current uncertainty regarding the timing of compensation payments is causing difficulty for the former customers of Setanta Insurance and I have asked that information on ICF procedures is made available publicly as soon as possible. The Accountant of the Courts of Justice can only deal with claims which are submitted by the Liquidator, so the advice to all claimants continues to be that they should contact the Liquidator of Setanta.
