The National Social Security Institute granted the Minimum Living Income to a man without him asking for it, who was already collecting the dependent child benefit and, upon realizing the incompatibility, claimed 14,498.30 euros of improper collection. Now, the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha agrees with the INSS to return what was overpaid, because it did not appeal the letter in which it was informed that it was not entitled to the benefit.
As the ruling explains, Social Security automatically converted the dependent child benefit into the Minimum Living Income, for which it would charge the amount of 876.85 euros per month. The resolution indicated that he had 30 days to decide whether to keep the child support and, since he did not say anything, he began to collect the IMV.
In October 2021, with the data provided by the Treasury, Social Security informed him that “the payment of said benefit is not applicable for exceeding the established limits.” That’s why they returned the child benefit and told him that the extra money collected would be regularized later.
In this way, in November 2023 they claimed the difference between the 15,009.80 euros of IMV that he collected from June 2020 to October 2021 and the 511.50 euros of aid per child that had to be replaced, which made a total of 14,498.30 euros. The man tried to claim that this aid had been granted to him ex officio and that his business was getting worse and worse, but even so the Social Court number 3 of Albacete dismissed his claim.
The deadline to claim expires after 30 days.
Before filing a claim for a Social Security benefit, a claim must be filed within 30 days following notification of the resolution, since this is established in article 71 of the Law regulating social jurisdiction. Since he did not present it to the court, that resolution became final.
That letter to the Court was “an administrative act with its own decision-making content, which definitively resolved the issue relating to the concurrence of the financial requirement,” although it left the calculation of the overcharge for later. When challenging the settlement, you could have disputed the errors in that settlement, the period, the payments received or the accounts, while your right to the Minimum Living Income was already decided.
The Chamber also does not apply the Cakarevic doctrine, of the European Court of Human Rights, which requires exemption from repayment when the debt makes it an excessive burden and which, according to the TSJ, does not generally prohibit claiming what was overpaid. At this point, clarify that the Supreme Court has already applied it to unemployment benefits collected in error from the SEPE.
For the TSJ there is no data of special vulnerability and for the Chamber, “the sole circumstance that the initial recognition occurred ex officio, although relevant to appreciate good faith, is not enough to exclude the application of the legal regime of reinstatement.”
They deny the Minimum Living Income to a father because his three children under 14 years of age did not have a DNI, although it is not mandatory until that age, and the TSJ of Madrid confirms it
Santiago Abascal makes clear Vox’s position on the Minimum Vital Income: “it will only be for Spaniards”
Regarding this ruling (available in the Judiciary) it must be taken into account that in the event of any resolution communicated by Social Security (such as this case of the IMV) in which one does not agree, there is a period of 30 days that must be used.