• You are here:
• Home /
• Sample Cases

Sample Cases

Case 3 : Lone parent gets HSE decision refusing an exceptional needs payment for furniture reversed.

A woman from County Kilkenny, who was a lone parent, was unhappy with the way in which the Health Service Executive, South, (HSE) dealt with her application for help in furnishing a house allocated to her by her local authority. Because the local authority house was unfurnished, my complainant needed to provide basic household effects including bedding, cooker, other kitchen equipment and chairs and a table. At the time she applied to the HSE, my complainant had a weekly income of €350.16 to provide for herself and her daughter. This income was made up of a one parent family payment, her earnings from a part-time job (8 - 12 hours per week) and a maintenance payment for her daughter of  €80 per week.

Her application for help was dealt with by the HSE by way of an exceptional needs payment (ENP) which operates within the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. The HSE made a payment of  €2,039 to her but my complainant said that this was insufficient to meet all of the basic household requirements. In particular, she complained that the payment was not enough to allow her buy a cooker, a bed for her nine-year-old daughter or storage units. When she appealed this decision to the HSE's appeals officer, the decision of the HSE was upheld.

Under the Supplementary Welfare Allowance legislation, the HSE may make a single payment to a person "to meet an exceptional need". The legislation does not expand on how this provision is to be operated but, in practice, the HSE takes the view that an ENP is paid to prevent hardship by catering for an essential, once off, exceptional need. The HSE also takes the view that ENPs are intended to meet unforeseen and/or special needs which cannot be met from the applicant's basic income.

In considering this complaint, my staff looked at the legislation governing the award of ENPs as well as at the HSE's internal guidelines for calculating the amounts to be paid in cases where an ENP is awarded. In the case of an ENP sought for basic household effects, the guidelines include a "Ready Reckoner" which suggests guide costs for individual household items. The level of ENP is generally calculated by reference to these guide figures. My staff noted that the ENP actually awarded in this case was €641 lower than the amount suggested when the "Ready Reckoner" figures for the individual items were added together. The HSE explained this on the basis that, where an applicant's weekly income is greater than the basic rate of Supplementary Welfare Allowance, this excess of actual income over the Supplementary Welfare Allowance rate is included in the calculation of the actual payment to be made. This is done based on an assumption that, in the case of an allocation of a local authority house, the applicant will be in a position to save this excess amount during each week following notification that a house is to be allocated. The thinking behind this is that the applicant will anticipate the need to furnish the promised house and, once notified of the date of the allocation, will set aside each week an amount equal to the amount by which actual income is greater than the basic rate of Supplementary Welfare Allowance.

In the case of my complainant, her weekly income was €128.36 in excess of the relevant Supplementary Welfare rate of €221.80 per week. It was clear from the HSE 's file on the application that the deduction of  €641 from the theoretical amount of the ENP was based on an assumption that the excess of  €128.36 per week should have been put aside by the applicant, towards the cost of the household effects, over five weeks. It was unclear why the HSE should have assumed that five weeks was the appropriate time period in circumstances where the woman had been given just two weeks notice of the tenancy by the local authority. Furthermore, in this case the HSE had not explained to the applicant that it had calculated the ENP amount by reference to guidelines which assumed she had been saving for five weeks at the rate of €128.36 per week. Had she known this, she could have pointed out that in fact she had been given only two weeks' notice of the tenancy.

My staff discussed with the HSE the approach it had taken to this case and asked that it review the decision it had made. The HSE accepted that the deduction of €641 from the theoretical amount of the ENP was not warranted and, having reviewed the case decided to award the applicant an additional  €500. Subsequently, the young woman informed my Office that she had used this additional money to buy a cooker, a small wardrobe and a single bed and mattress for her daughter.

While dealing with this case my staff noted that the "Ready Reckoner", which was used by the HSE to calculate the guide cost of household items, had not been updated since July 2003. Given movements in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in the intervening period, my Office asked the HSE whether the amounts for the specific items on the "Ready Reckoner" needed to be reviewed. I am pleased to report that, in response, the HSE updated the "Ready Reckoner" with effect from 1 April 2009, to take account of CPI movements in the intervening period and the increased competition among retailers in that period. This resulted in an increase in the guide figure for some items and a reduction in the case of others.

Back to contents