Citizen's income rejected: The dispute over "disposable income"

Image: Tobias Arhelger / shutterstock.com

Personal insolvency? Why the Jobcenter can't simply cut your benefits!

A single mother, three children, a partner with a job - actually a classic family applying for support from the citizen's allowance. But the job center said no. The reason? The partner earned money, so the family was not in need of help. So simple, so wrong - as a Bavarian court has now clarified.

Because what the job center counted as "disposable income" was actually not available at all: A large part of the partner's salary went directly to the insolvency administrator - due to ongoing personal insolvency. The money never ended up in the family's account. Nevertheless, the authorities assumed that they could live on it. The Munich Regional Social Court has now put a stop to this approach.

If you can't access the money, you can't use it

The ruling is clear: only money that is actually available may be taken into account when calculating the citizen's allowance. Or as the judges put it: "Income can only be taken into account as income if it is available as a 'ready means' to cover needs."

In plain language: If someone has no access to certain parts of their income at all - as in the case of an attachment of earnings due to personal insolvency - the Jobcenter may not treat this portion as if it could be used to pay rent, electricity or food.

Incidentally, this is also confirmed by the Federal Employment Agency: only money that is available at short notice and without detours may be taken into account. Anything else leads to a distortion of reality - and, in the worst case, to families having to do without urgently needed support.

A ruling with a signal effect - especially for indebted households

The decision of the state social court is an important signal for all recipients of citizen's allowance who have debts or seizures. This is because it is not uncommon for the job center to count amounts that cannot actually be used. The ruling provides clarity here - and protects against unjustified rejection of benefits.

For the family concerned, the ruling means that the application must be re-examined - and fairly. The ruling could now serve as a model for many other cases with a similar constellation.

Critical commentary

Sometimes common sense is stronger than administrative automatism. It's hard to believe that it takes a court ruling to establish that money you never see is not income. But when even courts have to repeatedly determine what should actually be obvious, something is systemically wrong.

The real scandal is not the wrong decision by the Jobcenter - but that this attitude is apparently not an isolated case. Anyone who has debts not only struggles with their account, but also with the mistrust of the administration. This judgment shows: Anyone applying for Citizen's Income should not be punished for the fact that the money looks better on paper than in real life.

Sources: Bavarian State Social Court (case reference L 11 AS 232/22), wa.de