Cavan pension claim after farm transfer
The Minister said the claimant’s assessed means, including income attributed to two holdings, exceeded the limit for a non-contributory pension; the transfer of one farm to his employed nephew was not accepted for pension purposes. The Deputy disputed the assessment, saying the claimant was not occupying his brother’s farm and that it had been sold. The Minister said changed circumstances could be grounds for a review.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a person (details supplied) in County Cavan is denied a non-contributory old age pension as he has disposed of a small farm, valuation £12.50, by deed to his nephew.
Comment on this
It has been decided by an appeals officer that the person concerned is not entitled to old age pension on the grounds that he does not fulfil the statutory conditions as to means. The assessment of his means consisting of the weekly value of income from two holdings exceeds the statutory limit for entitlement to pension.
The holding to which the Deputy refers was transferred to a relative in full time employment and the transfer was not accepted for old age pension purposes.
Comment on this
The claimant transferred the 19-acre farm to this nephew but the transfer was not accepted for old age pension purposes as his nephew is in full time employment as a mechanic.
Comment on this
Since when did that become a regulation? Will the Minister tell the House when it was decided that the occupation of the person to whom a farm was disposed should affect entitlement to a pension?
Comment on this
It has not been accepted. The claimant lives on a 19-acre farm. The land is considered fair and has a valuation of £13. The claimant transferred this land to his nephew and the estimated income from this holding with a stock of 15 cows, five calves and six one and a half year olds, less operating costs of £2.000 was estimated to equal £4,000. The claimant is in beneficial occupation of a second holding of 19 acres which is owned by his brother who lives in England. The estimated income from that holding with stock, less operating cost, is equal to £1,000. The claimant lodged an appeal and the appeals officer upheld the decision of the deciding officer.
Comment on this
Is the Minister aware — if he is not he should be because I informed him — that the claimant was not in beneficial occupation of the farm his brother owned? Is the Minister aware that the brother in England sold the farm? Will the Minister give me an assurance that he will look at this case because an injustice is being done and I am convinced of that?
Comment on this
If the circumstances have changed since the decision of the appeals officer dated 25 April 1985 it is open to the applicant to seek a review of this case.