Richard Boyd Barrett: Appeal Rules Stop New Evidence - Why?
Richard Boyd Barrett challenges rules that bar applicants from submitting new evidence at social housing appeals, arguing the policy punishes people who face document delays and bureaucratic confusion. He highlights cases where late medical letters or missed paperwork can determine housing priority and calls for fairer procedures.
Richard Boyd Barrett says preventing applicants from bringing new information at appeal stage is unfair. He explains that many applicants are eligible but are denied because they lacked the right documents or did not understand complex residency and legal requirements.
He outlines how routine delays - for example waiting months to see a consultant - can mean crucial evidence arrives after an initial decision. A subsequent consultant's letter that proves medical priority can be excluded as "new information," he argues, producing unjust outcomes.
Boyd Barrett points to the social welfare appeals system, where new information can be accepted, and asks why social housing should be treated differently. He frames the current rule as creating reasons to refuse rather than reasons to deliver a fair adjudication.
An official response in the clip sets out that appeals should be based on information available to the local authority at the time of decision. The reply notes local authorities will request missing documents, may accept substitute documentation at their discretion, and that applicants can withdraw an appeal to submit a fresh application.
The exchange raises practical and ethical questions about access to justice, administrative fairness and how social housing appeals handle documentary evidence. Boyd Barrett urges reconsideration of the rule to ensure that appeals are decided on substance, not procedural technicalities.
Main argument
Richard Boyd Barrett says preventing applicants from bringing new information at appeal stage is unfair. He explains that many applicants are eligible but are denied because they lacked the right documents or did not understand complex residency and legal requirements.
Bureaucracy and delays
He outlines how routine delays - for example waiting months to see a consultant - can mean crucial evidence arrives after an initial decision. A subsequent consultant's letter that proves medical priority can be excluded as "new information," he argues, producing unjust outcomes.
Comparison with social welfare appeals
Boyd Barrett points to the social welfare appeals system, where new information can be accepted, and asks why social housing should be treated differently. He frames the current rule as creating reasons to refuse rather than reasons to deliver a fair adjudication.
Official position and local authority practice
An official response in the clip sets out that appeals should be based on information available to the local authority at the time of decision. The reply notes local authorities will request missing documents, may accept substitute documentation at their discretion, and that applicants can withdraw an appeal to submit a fresh application.
Consequences and questions
The exchange raises practical and ethical questions about access to justice, administrative fairness and how social housing appeals handle documentary evidence. Boyd Barrett urges reconsideration of the rule to ensure that appeals are decided on substance, not procedural technicalities.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Tom Clonan
Tom Clonan: Ireland's alumina and Russia's war machine
Natasha Newsome Drennan
Natasha Newsome Drennan demands answers on Skyclarys delay
Eoin Ó Broin
Eoin Ó Broin demands date for Dart Plus South West funding
Cian O'Callaghan
Cian O'Callaghan: Rotunda rostering, Galway delays and patient risk
Brian Stanley
Brian Stanley: Laois must get urgent infrastructure funding
Thomas Gould
Thomas Gould: Urgent plea to stop dangerous scramblers
Transcript
I mean first of all in terms of all the habitual residency stuff and the legal residency extra requirements I mean that's that's complex a lot of documents often required and people aren't sure what documents are needed and so on so people who are should be eligible could be denied because they weren't quite sure or didn't have access to the documents or hadn't you know didn't put in the right documents but had them so the idea that you can't bring something forward when the substantial issue of your eligibility is bring new stuff forward at the appeal stage just doesn't make any sense and more generally not just in that area but all of the time people who come into us as I'm sure the minister knows our struggle with bureaucracy with documents and understanding the system and so can leave out things that might be relevant or not not fully understand what is you know what might be relevant or not relevant to the application that they're making and for them to be prohibited then from bringing that new information forward or in the medical stuff as I said that you know often there's just delays even if you're making an application delays getting a letter because I don't I won't see my consultant for two or three months and so I didn't have the consultants letter but then I got it subsequently but no I can't bring that in now because that's new I mean that's just it's like it's unfair because there's substantial you know if for example it was medical priority you're denied that and then you appeal it and subsequently you've got a letter from a consultant which is an absolute slam dunk that this person should be given priority but that is going to be ruled out because it's it's it's it's new it's new information you know it's just like it's reasons to say no rather than reasons to give a fair adjudication of the application and I don't see how it can possibly be fair and finally as already been said in the social welfare appeals system which we have noted works pretty well you can bring new information forward why would we be different in this in the relation to social housing thank you thank you very much here look and just to set out to the support and appeal the applicant who is of the opinion that the authority or determination made to support the ground of the appeals submit any information previously provided to the local authority concern for the purpose of making the determination the subject of the appeal it is not feasible or appropriate for an applicant to submit any new information at appeal stage due to the fact that the authority wouldn't affect you making a fresh determination in the event of new information being submitted I should I like this rule this applies to social housing applicants and not to emergency accommodations there is a important distinction there the documentation required to support an application is to be set out in the checklist for applicants contained within the prescribed social housing application form and as part of the assessment process a range of documentation is requested including various things such as proof of identity and current address applicants are also required to provide evidence relating to income any previous rent arrears and some other information as well where an application is incomplete over additional documentation required the local authority will engage directly with the household to request the necessary information and is only then when a final decision on the qualification of the household I will not be made until the local authority satisfied the sufficient support and documentation has been provided to enable a fully informed assessment now was that now with standing the documentation outlining the application form there may be circumstances where a particular document cannot be provided in such cases look 30 me at its discretion except alternative documentation in order to satisfy itself as to the relevant information required overall local authorities will work with the applicants at the application stage to ensure they are clear about the requirements and that all relevant and required information is available to them their purpose of appeal is to assure that an incorrect decision taken by local authorities remedies and that decision is a decision taken on the information that was available to local authorities in the first instance local authorities want people to succeed and there will help them in terms of ensuring that these the appropriate documentation if available is provided and a set out as well that they do have the powers and or discretion to accept substitute documentation as well but an appeal should be on a decision an appeal where you can submit additional information and you information that was not provided when there will have been opportunity to do so is not an appeal the decision it's an appeal de novo it's effectively a new decision so it is and of course it is always open to an applicant to withdraw any appeal a and to put in a new application in the cases of housing there's no no no what he is particular from doing so