A woman will not have to return the 7,795.90 euros that the Canarian Administration demanded from her for having allegedly improperly collected a non-contributory disability pension when registering her grandson. The Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands confirms that it was neither appropriate to extinguish the benefit nor to claim that reimbursement, since the family member whose income was taken into account to exceed the income limit did not actually live with her, although he was still registered in the same home.
According to the ruling, it all begins when the General Directorate of Social Policies and Immigration issued a resolution by which it terminated the benefit with effect from April 2023 and also declared the existence of an undue collection of 7,795.90 euros corresponding to the period between January 2022 and March 2023. The reason was that the Administration considered that the beneficiary formed an economic unit of cohabitation with her grandson, who was still registered in the address and had obtained income during 2021.
The woman claimed and explained that her grandson had no longer lived with her since 2020. Although he was still registered in that house since 2017, since April 2023 he was already registered at another address. In addition, sworn statements were presented to show that he and another relative had been living at another address for years. Even so, the Administration maintained that, by continuing to be registered with her, he should be counted as part of her cohabitation unit and his income should be added to review the pension.
The registry does not prove coexistence
Both the court and later the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands agreed with this woman. The court explains that the registry does not serve on its own to prove that two people actually live together. It may be important evidence, but not the only one, and it may be refuted by other documents or testimonies.
In fact, the ruling indicates that “the accreditation of residence and cohabitation unit cannot be limited to that means of proof, but other means are admissible” and adds that registration certifications, “although they are a privileged means of proof, admit evidence to the contrary that allows it to be distorted.” That is to say, even if a person is registered in a home, that is not enough if the trial proves that he or she actually lives somewhere else.
For this reason, the TSJ expressly says that “the economic unit of coexistence of the plaintiff is made up of a single person, and the registration of the registry cannot prevail over the reality that has been considered proven.” From there, it rejects the appeal of the General Directorate of Social Policies and Immigration and confirms the previous ruling, which already recognized that the woman could continue collecting the pension and that “the return of any amount due to improper collection was not appropriate.”