Month: March 2024

“Public services should reach reasonable solutions and avoid any inconvenience to citizens.”

The linkage of the disability benefit with the minimum guaranteed income creates distortions,” notes Commissioner for Administration Maria Stylianou Lottides in her report, while also emphasizing that public services, particularly those dedicated to serving vulnerable population groups, should, within their discretion, seek reasonable solutions and avoid any inconvenience to citizens.

Specifically, as reported, ‘XX, on July 28, 2022, lodged a complaint against the Social Welfare Benefits Management Service (SWBMS), regarding failure to make a decision on her application for Minimum Guaranteed Income (MGI) – Disability Benefit.

In the findings of the report, it is mentioned that the spouse of the complainant, who is suffering from cancer with a highly burdened health condition, submitted an application for MGI on December 15, 2020. The application was rejected thirteen months later. An objection against the rejection was not examined because it was deemed time-barred.

Meanwhile, an application for MGI was also submitted by the complainant herself, within the framework of which the complainant was referred to the Medical Board for Disability Assessment and was deemed a person with a disability entitled to MGI and disability benefits. However, it appears that the said application was never examined by the SWBMS, nor did the complainant or our Office receive any relevant information.

However, it is noted in the report that the alienation concerned the terrace of the complainant’s residence, which was transferred to her daughter for the purpose of building her own residence, and not for any other reason or benefit.

It is evident that if the complainant had not proceeded with the said donation to her daughter with the permit for construction, the immovable property she would have possessed would still have been solely her main residence, given that the terrace does not constitute a separate immovable property, and therefore, the complainant would meet the conditions of the legislation regarding the provision of MGI.

“From the above, it primarily emerges that the SWBMS violated its legal obligation to examine the complainant’s application, and moreover, within a reasonable time, which entails a failure to take due legal action, and consequently, a violation of the principle of legality.”

Given, indeed, it should be noted that the complainant is a person with disabilities, the failure to examine and evaluate her application for financial support from the state entails a violation of her right to an adequate standard of living and social protection, as enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

“I consider it appropriate, at this point, to reiterate my position that linking the payment of disability benefits to the minimum guaranteed income creates distortions, as evidenced in the present case, and often leads to depriving people with disabilities of a basic level of protection that would help them enjoy a comparable standard of living to those without disabilities and protect them from poverty and social exclusion,” stated the Commissioner for Administration in her report.

Accordingly, I expect,” she adds, “that with the legislation currently being prepared by the Ministry of Social Welfare, in consultation with the Cyprus Confederation of Organizations of the Disabled, the creation of a new framework will be ensured to guarantee and protect to the maximum extent the rights of people with disabilities to a sufficient level of life and social protection.

With regard to the fact that the transfer of the complainant’s rooftop to her daughter was deemed by the Ombudsman as an unnecessary/alleged alienation of immovable property and considered as a reason for rejecting her husband’s application, ‘on the one hand, a misguided perception is evident as to what constitutes the alienation of property since the rooftop is not separate from the rest of the property, especially when it is granted as consent for the construction of a residence by the beneficiaries (daughter) of the owner. On the other hand, it constitutes a particularly strict interpretation of the relevant legislation, which violates both the spirit of the Minimum Guaranteed Income Law and the General Law on Social Benefits, aimed at supporting socially vulnerable groups, as well as the principles of good governance, which require administrative bodies to act in accordance with the sense of justice, so that when applying the relevant legislative provisions in each specific case, unfair and unjust solutions are avoided.'”

“I reiterate what was indicated earlier, that if the complainant had not proceeded with the said donation, the immovable property she would possess would still be only her main residence, given that her rooftop does not constitute a separate immovable property, and therefore it would meet the requirements of the legislation regarding the provision of the Minimum Guaranteed Income,” noted Ms. Lottides.

Furthermore,” she adds, “it is a common practice in Cypriot reality for the rooftop of a house to be granted by parents to their children for the construction of a residence, and it is very rare for it to be sold to third parties

“In light of the above, I deem it appropriate to emphasize that public services, especially those tasked with serving the vulnerable groups of the population, should, within the scope of their discretion, seek reasonable solutions and avoid any inconvenience to citizens. They should apply the law on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the real circumstances of each case for the benefit of citizens,” she notes.

In this particular case,” she notes, “the Department failed to meet the above criteria, as it did not take into account the actual facts, namely that the ‘alienation’ of property is not essentially an alienation but a transfer to the couple’s daughter of the ‘terrace’ for the construction of her own residence, acting under a misconception.

The Commissioner recommends that within one month, any misconceptions and injustices regarding the application of the complainant and her spouse for Minimum Guaranteed Income, Disability Allowance, and Care Allowance be reviewed or re-reviewed, taking into account the above findings, with the aim of providing them with the allowances they are entitled to.

She emphasizes that this is a couple where the husband is suffering from cancer with severely compromised health, while the wife has a serious mobility impairment, certified by the Department of Social Inclusion.

“It is therefore evident that they have both increased financial needs and a need for home care services,” it is stated.

Source: Cyprus News Agency (KYPE