Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 13 November 2012
117. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will ensure that the option of a review in advance of an appeal is given greater prominence and explanation in letters sent out turning down applications with a view to reducing the number of cases that go forward to the more costly and time consuming appeals process. [49852/12]
Amharc ar fhreagra139. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will take legislative or other steps to ensure that the decisions of social welfare appeals officers are implemented by her Department promptly and in full, including recommendations that the appeals officers may make with regard to the recoupment of past overpayments. [49843/12]
Amharc ar fhreagra146. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will direct that deciding officers that are considering turning down an application for social welfare should make a telephone call to the applicant before finalising their decision during which basic things such as the absence of documentation or misunderstandings would come to light and these could be rectified in advance of the decision with a view to reducing the number of cases that go forward to the costly and time consuming appeals process. [49853/12]
Amharc ar fhreagra147. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will direct that all unsuccessful applicants for social welfare payments be given their complete file, including comments of deciding officers automatically, to aid in their appeals, thereby avoiding the expense and inconvenience of having to go through the freedom of information procedure. [49854/12]
Amharc ar fhreagra152. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Social Protection her plans to shorten the time period that it takes to implement decisions of appeals officers. [49851/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 117, 139, 146, 147 and 152 together.
Decisions on statutory social welfare schemes are made by statutorily appointed deciding officers. The rules of natural justice and fair procedures are applied by deciding officers when making decisions that could have an adverse effect on the person concerned. The deciding officer must satisfy him/herself that the person: is aware of all the information that could adversely affect his/her entitlement; was notified that his/her entitlement was under review; was given an opportunity to comment and to submit any facts or information to correct any inaccuracy or incompleteness in the information; and any comments made by the person are clearly and fully considered before a decision is made.
Deciding officers and others involved in the process will assist claimants as far as possible in making their applications but, as a matter of law, the burden of providing evidence to support a claim rests with claimants.
Disqualifications and disallowances are issued to the customer in writing and include an explanation of the reason/s for the decision. The disallowance/disqualification grounds, and reason/s for same, are outlined clearly and are sufficient to enable the appellant to lodge an appeal.
It is considered that issuing copies of claimants’ files or telephoning applicants prior to making a decision would place an unnecessary and unreasonable burden on resources in the Department and would impact on operating costs and processing times. Persons wishing to access their files are facilitated individually as requests are made.
Persons are advised, in decision letters, of their right to seek a Departmental review of the initial decision and are advised as to how to lodge an appeal to the Social Welfare Appeals Office (SWAO). Where a review is sought, the deciding officer re-examines the case and, taking account of any new facts or evidence, may revise his/ her decision. In 2011, 42% of favourable decisions made following lodgement of appeal applications, were as a result of deciding officers revising their original decisions, which obviated the need for claimants to go through the full appeals process. These revised decisions arose as a result, in most cases, of new facts or fresh evidence produced by the claimant after the original decision on his /her claim. The figures illustrate that the review process is well understood and utilised.
Decisions regarding the recoupment of overpayments are administrative in nature and do not fall within the remit of the SWAO. However, before a recovery plan is put in place, the views of the customer are sought and taken into consideration. The customer may also seek a review of the recovery plan.
Deciding officers are reminded through ongoing training, guidelines and circulars that the decision of the appeals officer should be implemented without delay. In a very small number of cases, changes in circumstances may come to light in the short period between the appeals officer making his/ her decision and its implementation, which would require revision of the appeals officer’s decision e.g. cases where evidence of fraud is discovered. There are also a very limited number of cases where the Chief Appeals Officer may be asked to review the appeals officer’s decision. The vast majority of appeals officers’ decisions are implemented on receipt of the decision.
