Residential qualification ignored?

Summary

The requester asked for statistics on how often residency requirements were overridden for three specific benefits over the past three months, including decision levels and reasons. The Treasury refused the request, stating that compiling the information from non-machine-readable paper files would require substantial work not mandated by the Freedom of Information Act.

Key Facts

• The request concerns Income-based jobseekers' allowance, Income support, and Employed persons' allowance.
• The requester originally asked for 10 years of data but amended the request to cover the past three months.
• All claims for the specified benefits are currently processed on paper and recorded in hard copy files.
• The hard copy files are not machine readable and decisions are not uploaded to electronic payment systems.
• The Treasury determined that complying would require substantial compilation or collation of information.

Data Disclosed

• 2024-07-03
• 2024-08-08
• 3957158
• three months
• section 8(3)(c)
• section 11(3)(b)

Exemptions Cited

• Section 8(3)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2015 (substantial compilation or collation)
• Section 11(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2015 (practical refusal reason)

Original Request

My FOI request concerns the following: Income-based jobseekers' allowance Income support Employed persons' allowance Guidelines for all benefits suggest 'you must satisfy the IOM residential condition'. The clause most pertinent to my FOI request is the five-year continuous residency. ---------------------------------------------- Income-based jobseekers' allowance Webpage for income-based jobseekers' allowance adds 'NORMALLY you must also satisfy the IOM residential condition to qualify for income-based jobseekers' allowance'. ---------------------------------------------- Income Support Webpage for Income Support adds 'satisfy the IOM residential condition (though in exceptional circumstances you may get income support even if you DON'T satisfy the IOM residential condition). ----------------------------------------------- Employed persons' allowance Webpage for Employed persons' allowance adds 'if you don't satisfy the residential condition but you do meet the other conditions required for EPA then you MIGHT be entitled to EPA if you can show it would be exceptionally harsh or oppressive to deny you EPA'. ------------------------------------------------------ My FOI request is this, and refers equally to all three benefits mentioned above; 1 - over the past ten years (year on year statistics) how many times has the 'residency requirement' been overridden when considering applications for: a/ income-based jobseekers' allowance, and b/ income support, and c/ employed persons' allowance. 2 - at what level (counter clerk, Minister, or a middle ranking official?) was the decision taken to override the 'residency requirement' in respect of: a/ income-based jobseekers' allowance, and b/ income support, and c/ employed persons' allowance. 3 - For what reason was the 'residency qualification' ignored in each of the cases, if any cases exist, in: a/ income-based jobseekers' allowance, and b/ income support, and c/ employed persons allowance.

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

Freedom of Information
Seyrsnys Fysseree

The Treasury Government Office,
Douglas Isle of Man, IM1 3PU

Telephone: (01624) 685605 Email: FOI.Treasury@gov.im

Government Website: www.gov.im

Our ref: 3957158 7 August 2024

Dear ###

This request is being handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2015.

We write further to your request received 3 July 2024 and amended on the 31 July 2024 and the 4 August 2024, which states:

"My FOI request concerns the following:

Income-based jobseekers' allowance

Income support

Employed persons' allowance

Guidelines for all benefits suggest 'you must satisfy the IOM residential condition'. The clause most pertinent to my FOI request is the five-year continuous residency.

Income-based jobseekers' allowance

Webpage for income-based jobseekers' allowance adds 'NORMALLY you must also satisfy the IOM residential condition to qualify for income-based jobseekers' allowance'.

Income Support

Webpage for Income Support adds 'satisfy the IOM residential condition (though in exceptional circumstances you may get income support even if you DON'T satisfy the IOM residential condition).

Employed persons' allowance

Webpage for Employed persons' allowance adds 'if you don't satisfy the residential condition but you do meet the other conditions required for EPA then you MIGHT be entitled to EPA if you can show it would be exceptionally harsh or oppressive to deny you EPA'.

My FOI request is this, and refers equally to all three benefits mentioned above;

1 - over the past three months (as amended from 10 years) (year on year statistics) how many times has the 'residency requirement' been overridden when

considering applications for:

a/ income-based jobseekers' allowance, and

b/ income support, and

c/ employed persons' allowance.

2 - at what level (counter clerk, Minister, or a middle ranking official?) was the decision taken to override the 'residency requirement' in respect of:

a/ income-based jobseekers' allowance, and

b/ income support, and

c/ employed persons' allowance.

3 - For what reason was the 'residency qualification' ignored in each of the cases, if any cases exist, in:

a/ income-based jobseekers' allowance, and

b/ income support, and

c/ employed persons allowance."

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance, complying with your request for information would require Treasury to undertake substantial compilation or collation of information that it holds which Treasury is not required to do under section 8(3)(c) of the Act. In these circumstances, a public authority may refuse a request on the grounds that a practical refusal reason applies under section 11(3)(b) of the Act.

All claims for Jobseekers allowance, Income Support and Employed persons’ allowance are currently paper based and the decisions made on those claims are recorded within

the individual hard copy files. These decisions are not uploaded to the electronic systems used to make benefit payments to customers and the hard copy files are not machine readable. It is not possible to use electronic searches for this particular request and, due to the volume of applications received daily, a manual search of our records to obtain the information requested would require significant personnel resource from the Division. As indicated previously, even for a period of 6 months there are over 2000 applications for these three benefits and it would take substantial resources to manually check each one. Fulfilling the request would require us to create or derive information and undertake substantial compilation or collation of information that it holds.

Even reducing the period of time to 3 months, as suggested, would take a member of staff around 1 to 1.5 working days to fulfil your request and would require that a member of the team be removed from their regular duties for that period, which would result in delayed assessments and payments.

For these reasons Treasury is not obliged to comply with your request.

Please quote the reference number 3957158 in any future communications.

Your right to request a review

If you are unhappy with this response to your freedom of information request, you may ask us to carry out an internal review of the response, by completing a complaint form and submitting it electronically or by delivery/post.

An electronic version of our complaint form can be found by going to our website at https://services.gov.im/freedom-of-information/Review . If you would like a paper version of our complaint form to be sent to you by post, please contact me and I will be happy to arrange for this. Your review request should explain why you are dissatisfied with this response, and should be made as soon as practicable. We will respond as soon as the review has been concluded.

If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner for a decision on;

1. Whether we have responded to your request for information in accordance with Part 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015; or
2. Whether we are justified in refusing to give you the information requested.

In response to an application for review, the Information Commissioner may, at any time, attempt to resolve a matter by negotiation, conciliation, mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution and will have regard to any outcome of this in making any subsequent decision.

More detailed information on your right to a review can be found on the Information Commissioner’s website at www.inforights.im.

Should you have any queries concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Further information about freedom of information requests can be found at www.gov.im/foi.

I will now close your request as of this date.