Arcibal and Department of Family and Community Services - [2001] AATA 129

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 129

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No T2000/122

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION       )
           Re      JUANITO ARCIBAL
  Applicant
           And    SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms A F Cunningham (Part-time Member)

Date25 January 2001
PlaceLaunceston

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.
[Sgd A F Cunningham] Part-Time Member
CATCHWORDS
Social Security – crisis payment – qualification - meaning of "extreme circumstances" – appeal dismissed.
Social Security Act 1991 – s.1061JH

REASONS FOR DECISION

20 February 2001 Ms A F Cunningham (Part-time Member)

This is a statement of reasons for decision pursuant to s.43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 in respect of an oral decision made on 25 January 2001.
This was the review of a decision made by a Centrelink officer on 27 March 2000 to reject the applicant's claim for crisis payment benefit. The decision was subsequently affirmed by an authorised review officer on 22 May 2000 and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) on 9 August 2000.
At the hearing before this Tribunal the applicant appeared in person and gave oral evidence. The respondent was represented by Ms Miller and called no evidence. The 'T' documents were admitted into evidence pursuant to s.37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
The applicant's case was that his circumstances at the time of his application for a crisis payment constituted in his mind a crisis within the meaning of the Social Security Act 1991 ("the Act").
His major complaint was that the Centrelink officers had not fully investigated his circumstances at the time of making their decision to reject his application for crisis payment. For example they did not refer to the letter he received from the University dated 25 February 2000 which inter alia made reference to his arrears of rent and possible eviction if he failed to meet payment by Monday 28 February 2000.
The applicant informed the Tribunal that at the time he was suffering financial hardship. The evidence before the Tribunal as contained in the 'T' documents, evidences the arrears of rent that he owed and the requirement to meet payment.
In the essence the applicant's contention was that the threat of eviction hanging over him and his severe financial circumstances constituted extreme circumstances within the meaning of the Act.
The applicant agreed under cross-examination that he had not in fact been evicted at the time of making his application and contended that this information had been incorrectly completed by a Centrelink officer on his application form (see T3). The applicant said that he made the decision to leave his premises because he feared eviction.
The relevant legislation is contained in s.1061JH of the Act which sets out the qualification provisions for a crisis payment which read as follows:-
"A person is qualified for a crisis payment if, after the commencement of this section:
(a)the person has left, or cannot return to, his or her home because of an extreme circumstance; and
(b)the extreme circumstance makes it unreasonable to expect the person to remain in, or return to, the home; and
(c)the person has established, or intends to establish, a new home; and
(d)at the time the extreme circumstances occurred, the person was in Australia; and
(e)the person makes a claim for a crisis payment within 7 days after the extreme circumstance occurred; and
(f)on the day on which the claim was made:
(i)the person is in severe financial hardship (see section 19D); and
(ii)the person has made a claim (whether on the same day or on an earlier day) for a social security pension or benefit and the person is qualified for the pension or benefit; and
(g)during the 12 months immediately preceding the day on which the claim is made, no more than 3 crisis payments have been payable to the person.
Note: Examples of extreme circumstances that would qualify a person for crisis payment are the person's house being burnt down, or the person being subjected to domestic or family violence."
An applicant must satisfy each of these provisions in order to qualify. Ms Miller advised the Tribunal that there was no issue with the applicant's qualification in accordance with sub-paragraph (d) to (g), but contended that the applicant's circumstances were not extreme in accordance with the requirements of the section.
The Tribunal accepts that at the time of his application for crisis payment, the applicant was in receipt of Austudy benefits and had left his previous University accommodation because he had been threatened with eviction if he did not do so. The reason for this appears to be because the applicant's behaviour was, in the eyes of the University unacceptable and also his failure to meet his obligations under the terms of his tenancy agreement. There was also reference in the 'T' documents to problems with noise from jackhammers at 7 am in the mornings, but the applicant did not refer to this in his evidence. In any event, the Tribunal does not accept that this would constitute an extreme circumstance within the meaning of the Act. Examples of extreme circumstances as stated in the notation to s.1601JH of the Act are the destruction of a person's residence through fire, or being forced to leave due to domestic or family violence. Neither of these circumstances are present in this case. The notation provides the Tribunal with examples of what is meant by the term and suggests that they be out of the ordinary and that mere financial hardship alone would not be accepted. Ms Miller referred the Tribunal to the definition of "extreme" in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary which included the terms "outermost" and "upmost".
The applicant in this case is in receipt of Austudy benefits which for many students is their sole source of income. The applicant chose to leave his accommodation and was not forcibly removed. He was able to immediately secure alternative accommodation with TAFE at a cheaper rental than that previously paid by him. These circumstances in the Tribunal's view would not constitute extreme circumstances within the meaning of s.1601JH of the Act. It would appear that the intention of this legislative provision is to provide relief for persons suffering an accommodation crisis, brought about by extreme circumstances presumably not within their control or management. The fact that the applicant is not managing financially on the Austudy benefit received by him does not in the Tribunal's view constitute the sort of crisis intended by the legislation.
For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed and the decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the 13 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms A F Cunningham (Part-time Member)
Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Personal Assistant
Date/s of Hearing  25 January 2001
Date of Decision  25 January 2001
Counsel for the Applicant        Applicant appeared for himself.
Solicitor for the Respondent    Ms L Miller (Centrelink)