• You are here:
• Home /
• Sample Cases

Sample Cases

Department of Social and Family Affairs - Dispute about Pension Entitlements

Year Concluded: 2006

Name of Body: Department of Social and Family Affairs

Subject of Complaint: Dispute About Pension Entitlements

Complaint Details:

A retired member of An Garda Síochána from County Cork contacted my Office to complain that he had received incorrect information from the Department of Social and Family Affairs which led him to believe that, following his retirement, he would qualify for a reduced rate Old Age Contributory Pension.

Prior to joining the force the man had worked in the private sector for five years. In 1989, at a point when he had served with the Gardaí for nearly 30 years, he made enquiries of the Department regarding his insurance record. He was advised that he had a total of 260 relevant paid social insurance contributions for Social Welfare purposes. However, he did not retire until 1994, following which he worked for a number of weeks in the private sector. In the interim period, a special pro rata mixed insurance pension had been introduced with effect from 1 November 1991. This pension enables individuals, who have a mixture of full-rate and modified-rate social insurance contributions, to qualify for a reduced amount of Social Welfare pension. He again wrote to the Department in order to confirm his contribution situation and he was informed that he had 260 relevant recorded social insurance contributions.

According to the information he had received he would have been eligible for payment of the special pro rata mixed insurance pension. On reaching age 65 he applied for the pension but his application was disallowed on the basis that he did not satisfy the basic contribution condition of having at least 260 paid social insurance contributions. He disputed the matter but was later informed that the figure of 260 social insurance contributions included some credited contributions which are not regarded as paid contributions for pension purposes. He appealed the rejection of his application to the independent Social Welfare Appeals Office but his appeal was not upheld.

I wrote to the Department and suggested that, in view of the incorrect information which had been given to the complainant on two occasions, it could be regarded that this was directly responsible for misleading him, and in that light he may have established a legitimate expectation to receive the pension. A senior official within the Department carried out a complete review of the case and decided to award him the pension and appropriate arrears amounting to over €32,000.

The Department has to be commended for deciding to settle this complaint with the minimum of formality.

Back to contents