Social Security withdrew the Minimum Living Income from a woman when it understood that she exceeded the asset limit allowed to access the benefit, in addition to asking her to return 4,986.19 euros in undue charges. The reason was that a home he owned was counted as his assets, considering that it was not his habitual residence at the time he requested the aid. Now, the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community agrees with the woman and orders Social Security to reactivate her benefit.
The woman had requested the Minimum Living Income, stating that she formed a cohabitation unit with her son, and Social Security approved it with a monthly amount of 453.29 euros. The problem is that, months later, Social Security terminated it when it considered that their cohabitation unit exceeded the asset limit. Specifically, the organization established a computed asset of 30,082.38 euros, above the limit of 23,684.64 euros.
Apparently, this asset included a home that the affected person had purchased in 2017. For the INSS, since she did not reside there when she submitted the IMV application, that property could not be considered a habitual residence and should be included in the asset calculation. In addition, the managing entity came to claim 4,986.19 euros for improper charges corresponding to the period between January and November 2021.
The non-compliant beneficiary challenged that decision and defended that the transfer of residence had only been temporary. According to the ruling, his departure from the home was related, on the one hand, to the fact that he had been suffering from lower back problems for years and the property did not have an elevator, which made his situation difficult. On the other hand, she was recognized as a victim of gender violence, a circumstance that made it possible for her to temporarily reside in another home adapted to her needs.
The home could not be counted as assets
Given the allegations, the TSJ of Valencia agrees with the plaintiff, explaining that the debate was not really about whether the woman lived and was registered in another municipality when she requested the IMV, something that it considered accredited, but rather about determining whether her home continued to be her habitual residence despite that temporary absence.
At this point, the ruling points out “the concept of habituality in the use of a certain address.” From there, the magistrates assess both the time spent in each home and the personal circumstances of the affected person. The resolution recalls that the woman was registered in Xirivella for almost three years, while in Sigüenza she remained just over ten months, a clearly shorter period and also linked to justified causes.
The court also makes it clear that the registration certificate has probative value, but not absolute. In fact, it states that it is “a mere instrument of iuris tantum evidence”, which means that it admits evidence to the contrary. And in this case that proof existed. The limited duration of the transfer, the plaintiff’s state of health and her personal situation prevented, in the opinion of the Chamber, from treating Xirivella’s home as another property asset for the purposes of the IMV.
Thus, the Court concludes that these circumstances “prevent granting the home the property treatment” intended by Social Security. For all these reasons, it dismisses the Social Security appeal, confirms the woman’s right to continue receiving the Minimum Living Income and leaves the termination of the benefit void.