The appellant’s main contention, in effect, was that he was denied a social welfare payment because he was not given crucial information at the outset. He also contended that the delays in processing his claim (both at first instance and on appeal) caused him to dwindle his savings and take on debt. The Appeals Officer identified the applicable legislation as Section 142(2)(b) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. The appellant’s evidence at appeal suggested that the property in the country could not have been rented out but was capable of being sold. The Appeals Officer noted that had the appellant not bought the property in the country and had instead placed the inheritance money in a savings account, this would also be assessable for means testing purposes. The appellant asked the question what would happen if a person’s home was flooded and they could not live there for a time. The Appeals Officer stated that in such a scenario Article 141 of the Social Welfare (Consolidated Claims, Payments and Control) Regulations (S.I. No. 142 of 2007) provides for an exemption of a person’s primary residence being treated as an investment property, but the provision also requires that the property had ordinarily been the person’s main residence before they vacated it. The Appeals Officer concluded that this exemption did not apply in the appellant’s case and was satisfied that the legislation was applied correctly by the Department to the facts of the appellant’s case.