The High Court has affirmed the previous judgement that the estate of a woman is bound to refund €51,700 due to over-payments of the non-contributory pension. The decision is based on the findings that the woman, a childless widow, who was initially evaluated in early 2006 and found to have a weekly earning of €37 from her farming activities and held a negative balance in her bank account. However, her pension entitlement was lowered from late 2006 and stopped by mid-2009.
Upon her death in 2015, at approximately 90 years of age, investigation revealed the existence of five additional bank accounts with accumulative savings of €71,700. At the time of her passing, her closest relatives were her cousins. The old-age pension, which is means-tested, is awarded to individuals who, due to insufficient means, require weekly payments to uphold a modest basic standard of living.
Despite living on a Western farm, the woman did not report her change in circumstances to the social welfare authorities, as required by the law, and continued getting her pension until her demise based on the initial assessment of her means. When the executor discovered the undisclosed bank accounts at the probate stage, it sparked an investigation by social welfare officials. Consequently, in 2016 an officer demanded that her estate refund €72,100, which was the total she had wrongly received from late 2006 until her death.
This amount was later trimmed down to €51,700 upon the conclusion by a social welfare appeals officer that the woman lacked the mental viability from July 2013 to inform authorities about her change in financial status. The executor of her property sought revision of this appeal resolution, arguing on the grounds of “new medical evidence”, that the woman had lost her mental capacity from 2009 and had been affected by Alzheimer’s since 2010.
In response to the executor’s request for review as per section 317(1)(a) of the 2005 Social Welfare Consolidation Act, which allows for the revision of an appeal verdict appears mistaken in view of new evidence, the appeal officer determined the new specifics, inclusive of a letter from the woman’s General Practitioner (GP), did not signify any factual error in the prior judgement.
The findings and justifications of the Executor’s appeals in the High Court were summarised by Justice Alexander Owens in his ruling. He deemed that the appeals officer was lawfully correct in his decision-making.
Justice Owens acknowledged that it is not possible for the executor to question the legality of the officer’s verdict or supplant the officer’s role in examining facts through the High Court appeal.
As stated by the judge, the woman involved – whose name remains undisclosed in the judgement – personally collected her pension up until April 2014. Each time, she affirmed that there were no changes to her financial status.
Still, the judge stated that “significant” amounts got deposited into her accounts, including EU farm subsidy payments. Her accounts presented conspicuous credit balances before the onset of any cognitive impairment. Her financial records indicate systematic handling of her affairs until her demise.
The appeals officer was found by the judge to have rightfully lessened the estate’s liability. It was highlighted that the woman didn’t reveal her entire income during reviews in 1997 and 2005 when she was in relatively sound health, although she had cognitive issues in her later years.
The executor contested in the High Court that the appeals officer should have considered the opinion of a medical examiner. They proposed that the medical records necessitate a conclusion that the woman was incapable from 2010. However, Justice Owens stated that the officer had the right to determine that the newly submitted information didn’t sufficiently denounce the previous appeal decision as flawed.
Justice Owens explained that the woman’s ineligibility for a pension was due to her wealth increasing, not connected to any medical conditions.