• You are here:
• Home /
• Reports /
• Annual Reports /
• Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2008 (text version)

Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2008 (text version)

6.2.3 Selected Cases - Contributory State pension increased by Department of Social and Family Affairs for farm worker

Sometimes, at first glance, a complaint appears not to have merit but on examination and with fuller information it may well turn out to be justified. Such was the case with a complaint from a man who was unhappy that the department had awarded him the State pension (contributory) at half rate only, whereas he believed he was entitled to payment at a higher rate.

The department had awarded the pension at half rate on the basis that the man's yearly average of social insurance amounted to 13 contributions; were his yearly average at the level of 15 or more contributions then he would be entitled to a higher rate of pension. On examining his pension file, it did seem that the department was correct in its calculations. The complainant had been engaged in farming for most of his working life though he did also have some social insurance contributions as an employee. According to the department's records, he had first worked as an employee in 1957. However, there were significant gaps in his social insurance record during the period 1958 to 1967, and from 1968 to 1993 there was no record of social insurance, either paid or credited contributions.  In 1993 the man began to pay self-employed social insurance and continued to do so until the year before his retirement in 2003.

The man had appealed the decision on the basis that, as he saw it, some periods of employment (including self-employment between 1988 and 1993) were not recorded by the department. However, this appeal was unsuccessful. From my Office's subsequent examination of the file, I was satisfied that none of the employments to which the man referred was insurable under social welfare legislation. In particular, I accepted the department's position that a period of self-employment from 1988 to 1993 was not insurable, as he had been paid unemployment/smallholders assistance during this period. On the face of it, therefore, the department's position seemed to be correct. However, I decided to write to the complainant, setting out the information available, and asking if there was any additional information he could provide which would warrant further examination of his case.

In his reply, the man gave details, not only of a further period of employment but also other periods, during which he had received unemployment payments. These periods were prior to 1957, which according to the department's records, was when he first entered social insurance. The details he gave of unemployment payment amounts received, corresponded with the maximum rate of unemployment benefit payable at that time. This raised the possibility that the man had been insurably employed prior to1957, as payment of unemployment benefit would have been dependent on his having paid a minimum number of social insurance "stamps" before making a claim. This possibility was strengthened by the knowledge that the complainant, like many of his generation, had left school at primary level but that his first recorded insurable employment was not until he had reached 20 years of age. The likelihood of his having been in employment between 16 years and 20 years, along with the specific details he had now given, warranted the making of some further enquiries. Accordingly, I asked the department to investigate the possibility that the man had been in insurable employment prior to 1957 and that social contributions should have been paid and/or credited for such time.

Following its investigation, the department concluded that the man was entitled to the award of an additional 52 social insurance contributions (between paid and credited contributions). This had the effect of raising his yearly average to 15 contributions, which meant he had an entitlement to a pension at 75% of the full rate from the date on which he reached 66 years of age.  The man received over €18,000 in arrears as a result of my Office's intervention.

Back to contents