• You are here:
• Home /
• Publications /
• Case Digests

Case Digests

Chapter 4 - Benefiting Other People in Similar Situations

Chapter Four

Benefiting Other People in Similar Situations The resolution of an individual complaint can have benefits for other people in a similar position.

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council - Waiver of Service Charges

The complainant, an old age pensioner, applied to the Council for a full waiver of her service charges. In accordance with its interpretation of the terms of the scheme, the Council granted a 50% waiver of the �190.46 charge on the grounds that her income was derived from pensions.

A full waiver would be granted by the Council in these type of circumstances if an applicant were in receipt of a living alone allowance. As the complainant in this case was not in receipt of a living alone allowance she was refused the full waiver.

Following discussion between this Office and the Council, it reviewed the case. It accepted that the intention of their scheme was that an applicant, in circumstances such as the complainant's, should benefit from the scheme. The Council accordingly granted her a full waiver. In addition, the Council reviewed the cases of thirty other similar applicants and agreed to grant them a full waiver.

Department of Agriculture and Food - Refusal of Arable Aid Payment

The Department withheld a farmer's Arable Aid payment for 1997 in respect of a parcel of setaside land. He had not complied with the terms and conditions of the scheme in that he did not 'top' the land (i.e. cut the green cover) as he was required to do. He appealed the decision on the basis that he had inspected the land in late July 1997 with a view to topping it for Arable Aid purposes and had found pheasants' nests, together with adult birds, chicks and eggs, along with a number of goldfinches, which he believed was an endangered species. He also sighted a pair of buzzards. He decided not to proceed with topping and sprayed the thistles with pesticide instead as an interim measure, in the interests of wildlife conservation. He was also participating in the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) and said that there was a conflict in this case between his obligations under Arable Aid and under REPS. It is a requirement of REPS that wildlife habitats must be protected.

The Department refused his appeal on the grounds that the parcel of land was not managed as setaside as required by the terms and conditions of the Arable Aid Scheme and the farmer had not sought a derogation from that requirement in advance. The Department said that the 1995/96 Arable Aid booklet provided for such a derogation. The farmer pointed out that this provision was not included in the 1996/97 booklet (which covered the period of his application) and that it was therefore reasonable to assume that it was no longer possible to seek a derogation. The Department informed him that the rules had not been changed in 1996/97 and that he could have sought a derogation. It also said there was no conflict between the two schemes. The Office requested the Department to review the complaint on the basis that (a) the derogation was introduced to provide for possible conflicts between the environmental aims of REPS and the requirements of the Arable Aid Scheme; (b) the omission of the derogation from the booklet created confusion and (c) such a derogation was retrospectively granted in another case, which differed only in that the applicant in that case was involved in an environmental protection organisation, whereas the complainant in this case was not. The Department reviewed its position and decided to pay the complainant in respect of his 1997 application. It also said that the 2001 Helpsheet/Terms and Conditions for the scheme indicated that applicants could seek the permission of the Department to follow their own setaside management plans on environmental or conservation grounds.

Back to contents