Cinneadh
Mr A and the Department of Social Protection (the Department)
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: 140060
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: 140060
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Whether the Department has provided a sufficient statement of reasons to the applicant in relation to his request, under Section 18 of the FOI Act, for the reasons why it applied section 243 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 (the Social Welfare Act) to his claim in relation to loss of purchasing power
18 September 2014
The applicant has been in receipt of a disablement pension since suffering an occupational injury in 1980. In January 2012 he made an application to the Department for an increase to his pension. In support of his claim he submitted a copy of an original medical assessment carried out by the Department's doctor in 1981. On 8 May 2012, the Department made a decision to increase his pension award by 10%. Section 243 of the Social Welfare Act (section 243) provides for a payment in respect of loss of purchasing power (LPP) in regard to claims that fulfil certain criteria. The applicant contacted the Department enquiring why a payment had not been made in respect of LPP in his case and, following its response on 23 May 2012, he appealed that decision to the Department. On 5 October 2012 the Department issued a formal decision upholding the decision not to award LPP. The applicant subsequently made a complaint to the Ombudsman relating to the non-payment of LPP.
On 23 December 2013, the applicant requested a statement of reasons from the Department under section 18 of the FOI Act explaining why it applied section 243 to his case. Having examined his subsequent correspondence with the Department and this Office it is clear to me that what he sought was an explanation why the Department made a decision not to award LPP. In its decision on 20 January 2014 the Department released copies of four records to the applicant, which it considered to fully explain the reasons behind its decision not to make the award. On 27 January 2014, the applicant made an internal review request to the Department, which upheld its original decision on 14 February 2014, on the basis that his request had been met in full by the release of the four records relating to his claim. On 12 March 2014 the applicant applied to the Commissioner for a review of the Department's decision.
I note that, on 9 May 2014, the Department wrote to the applicant informing him that it had decided to award LPP from 27 November 1981 to 17 May 2012. Ms Sandra Murdiff, Investigating Officer wrote to the applicant on 26 August 2014 enquiring whether he wished to proceed with his application as it appeared that events had now overtaken his request for a statement of reasons. The applicant replied on 3 September 2014 stating that he wished to proceed.
I have now decided to conclude this review by way of a formal binding decision.
In conducting this review I have had regard to the Department's decisions on the matter and its communications with this Office; to the applicant's communications with this Office and the Department; to the records and statement of reasons provided to the applicant in response to his request and to the provisions of the FOI Act.
During the course of this review Ms Murdiff contacted the Department and outlined her view that the release of records did not comprise a statement of reasons as required by section 18 of the FOI Act. In response the Department issued a statement of reasons to the applicant dated 15 September 2014. Accordingly, this review is solely concerned with whether the Department provided an adequate statement of reasons for the act in question for the purposes of section 18 of the FOI Act.
Section 18 of the FOI Act provides that a person affected by an act of a public body, who has a material interest in a matter affected by the act, or to which it relates, may apply to the public body requesting a statement of the reasons for the act and any findings on any material issues of fact made for the purposes of said act.
Where a requester applies for a review of a decision of a public body on the grounds that s/he is not satisfied with the contents of a statement of reasons, the Commissioner's role is confined to deciding whether the public body has complied with the requirements imposed on it by section 18, i.e. whether the statement given is adequate. His remit does not extend to examining the appropriateness or otherwise of the particular act for which reasons are sought. In this instance, the "act" in question was the decision not to award a payment in respect of LPP.
At this point it would be useful to set out what I consider should be the principal features of a statement of reasons having regard to section 18. In my view, a statement of reasons should be intelligible and adequate having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. The statement should be sufficiently clear to enable the requester to understand without undue difficulty why the public body acted as it did. It should identify the criteria relevant to the act and explain how each of the criteria affected the act. However, I do not consider that a statement should necessarily have to contain a detailed clarification of all issues identified by a requester as relevant to a particular act or decision.
The records the Department released to the applicant in response to his request for a statement of reasons comprise the following:
In addition to the above, on 15 September 2014 the Department issued a statement of reasons to this applicant explaining why it had made the decision not to award LPP.
Section 243 provides that a payment may be made in respect of loss of purchasing power where payment of a claim made under section 241 of the Social Welfare Act is delayed for more than 12 months. This only applies where the delay is due solely or mainly to circumstances within the control of the Department and the person making the claim has not contributed to the delay.
Having carefully examined the records described above and the statement of reasons provided to the applicant, it is clear to me that the Department considered that LPP did not apply, as less than 12 months had elapsed between his claim in January 2012 and its decision in May 2012. While I agree with the applicant that the correspondence from the Department to him in May 2012 (part of FOI-2 and FOI-3) did not adequately explain the reasoning employed by it in coming to this decision, the letter dated 5 October 2012 (part of FOI-2) clearly states that LPP was not awarded as there was no delay by the Department in dealing with the claimant's request for review of his pension award. The letter to the Ombudsman in October 2013 (FOI-4) sets out the Department's thinking on this matter in more detail. Furthermore, and of most relevance, the Department's statement of reasons to the applicant on 15 September 2014 clearly explains the above.
Essentially, the applicant's argument with the Department relates solely to the fact that he believed that the medical report dated 1981 had been the deciding factor in the award of an extra 10% to his pension. He was of the opinion that this meant that there had been a delay exceeding 12 months (i.e. from 1981 to 2014). The Department did not take this view and this, and the reasoning it employed in coming to this decision is, in my opinion, very apparent in the letter of 5 October 2012, the Ombudsman letter and the statement of reasons provided on 15 September 2014.
In my view, the statement of reasons and records provided by the Department to the applicant fully explain why he was not awarded a payment in respect of LPP. Accordingly, I find that the Department's statement of reasons, taken together with the records provided to the applicant by the Department, is adequate to meet its obligations under section 18 of the FOI Act. I find accordingly.
Having carried out a review under section 34(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 (as amended) I hereby affirm that the statement provided by the Department to the applicant is satisfactory and meets the requirements of section 18 of the FOI Act.
A party to a review, or any other person affected by a decision of the Information Commissioner following a review, may appeal to the High Court on a point of law arising from the decision. Such an appeal must be initiated not later than eight weeks from the date on which notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Stephen Rafferty
Senior Investigator