Axsel and Secretary, Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

[2007] AATA 2011

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 2011

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q 200700027

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)                2007/1753
Re		HELEN AXSEL

Applicant

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal M J Carstairs, Senior Member

Date4 December 2007

PlaceBrisbane

Decision

With reference to Application Q2007/27, the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review, that is, the decision dated 24 August 2006 cancelling the applicant’s carer payment and carer allowance for her parents, and substitutes the decision that those payments should not have been cancelled.

With reference to Application 2007/1753, the Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review and remits them to the respondent to recalculate the applicant’s debt of carer payment and carer allowance in accordance with the following directions:

§  that Ms Axsel has incurred a debt of carer payment and carer allowance being all such payments made to her with respect to Mr Peter de Laat after 29 December 2004 and until these payments were cancelled;

§  that Ms Axsel has incurred no debt of carer payment and carer allowance with respect to her parents (Q 2007/27).

This debt, once recalculated, is to be recovered from the applicant.

................[Sgd]..............................

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – carer payment and carer allowance – Centrelink cancelled the applicant’s carer payments with respect to her parents – medical evidence – evidence presented supporting the level of care the applicant gave her parents – decision under review set aside

SOCIAL SECURITY – carer payment and carer allowance – Centrelink raised a debt on the basis that the applicant was not providing the required level of care to receive carer entitlements – one debt correctly raised which cannot be waived or written off – debt in relation to the applicant’s parents is set aside – debt remitted to the respondent to recalculate the amount

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) ss 198, 954A, 1223, 1237AAD

Re Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD 1
Groth v Department of Social Security (1995) 40 ALD 541

McDonald v Director-General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354

REASONS FOR DECISION

4 December 2007   M J Carstairs, Senior Member

1.      For a number of years, Ms Helen Axsel has been receiving certain Centrelink entitlements that are paid to carers.  A Centrelink delegate has now decided that she was not entitled to those payments paid to her between 29 December 2004 and 16 August 2006 and seeks recovery of them. 

2.      The particular payments were carer payment and carer allowance. Carer payment is an income support payment paid to carers who provided constant care to a disabled person (or persons) for extended periods.  It is referred to as an “income support payment” because its rate recognises that the duties of caring may prevent a caregiver participating fully, if at all, in the paid workforce.  Carer allowance on the other hand is a supplementary payment only, paid usually (but not necessarily) where the carer and the disabled person reside in the same private home, but paid only for certain kinds of care, namely care related to bodily functions and sustaining life. 

3.      There are two decisions under review:

§  Application Q2007/27 relates to Centrelink’s cancellation of Ms Axsel’s entitlements with respect to her parents, Mr Raymond Walton and Mrs Eugenia Walton.  Ms Axsel was paid between 12 May 2006 and 23 August 2006.  

§  Application 2007/1753 relates to debts that Centrelink have raised on the basis that Ms Axsel did not qualify for carer payments for care she said she was providing, in the first instance to Peter de Laat (29 December 2004 to 14 June 2006), and in the second instance to her parents (12 May 2006 to 23 August 2006). The latter debt amount follows from the cancellation decision under review in Q2007/27.

ISSUES

4.      In determining these applications, a central consideration is whether Ms Axsel qualified for the payments of carer payment and carer allowance that she received.  If she did not qualify, then the cancellation decision was correct (Q2007/27).  Likewise, if she did not qualify, then it follows that in these circumstances she will have debts relating to the payments both for the care for Mr de Laat and her parents. 

LEGISLATION

5.      The legislative provisions for carer payment are found in s 198 of the Social Security Act 1991 which provides that the carer must personally provide constant care for a disabled adult in the home of the disabled adult. 

6.      Section 954A provides for payment of carer allowance, where the carer and the care recipient do not live at the one residence.  Part of the test is that the care receiver must achieve a certain score under the Adult Disability Assessment Tool - not here disputed.  The care provided must be for at least 20 hours per week, and must be care required by the care receiver in relation to their bodily functions and/or to sustaining their life.

CARER PAYMENT AND CARER ALLOWANCE FOR PETER DE LAAT

7.      Ms Axsel conceded at the hearing that she was not caring for Mr De Laat from about the start of 2006 and accepts that she has a debt for the carer payments made to her from the start of that year.  The gist of the respondent’s case is that she in fact was not caring for him, in the relevant sense set out in the legislation as referred to above, at any time in the overpayment period.  Mr de Laat’s statements to Centrelink provide the strongest support for that conclusion. 

8.      The respondent did not call any evidence at the hearing, so the statements that Mr de Laat has made to Centrelink from time to time give some indication of why, in 2006, Centrelink started to seriously question Ms Axsel’s entitlements to care for Mr de Laat.  In about May 2006, another person made a claim to Centrelink that she was Mr de Laat’s carer.  But well before this there was quite a history, reflected in file notes, that Mr de Laat reported that Ms Axsel was not providing care to him.

9.      It would have been desirable to have direct evidence from Mr de Laat.  However before the first listed date of hearing (August 2007), the respondent notified the Tribunal that Mr de Laat was hospitalised and unavailable to give evidence. 

10.     It is important therefore to gain an appreciation of how Ms Axsel’s claim commenced being paid in 2004 and continued to be paid.  An examination of the claim form lodged by Ms Axsel in December 2004 indicates that Centrelink carried out the necessary checks to establish Ms Axsel's entitlements as a carer at that time.  However at a review carried out in mid-June 2005, Mr de Laat told Centrelink that he had been in hospital for some four months and had only seen Ms Axsel three times.[1]  This prompted the Centrelink officer to suggest a formal investigation APC Compliance -- Complex Investigations. 

[1]        T58, p 242.

11.     This investigation appears not to have proceeded – to judge by the content of the computer record a year later, on 21 June 2006, which reads relevantly as follows:[2]

I tried to contact the customer [that is, Ms Axsel] … After trying a couple of times I then contacted Peter de Laat to see if/when he would be expecting carer.  He said that he had not seen her since May 2005 and hadn't really cared for him since before Christmas 2004/2005…

I then looked back through both carer and caree records and realised this situation has been going on for some time and I had originally reported it to compliance back on 10/6/2005.

[2]        T58, p 236

12.     Mr de Laat has been contacted on a number of occasions and there are a number of typed records of telephone conversations.  The telephone conversations between Mr de Laat and the authorised review officer[3] and between Mr de Laat and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal are good examples of the tenor of his information. 

[3]        T53

13.     Mr de Laat told the authorised review officer that Ms Axsel had provided “some care”, not daily but more like once or twice a month.  When the Social Security Appeals Tribunal[4] telephoned Mr de Laat, he said that Ms Axsel had done a good job caring for him “at first”.  I understand the reference to “at first” as being a reference to when he was living at Nerang, before relocating to Miami in late December 2004.  When Mr de Laat was living at Nerang Ms Axsel was living not far away.  However she also moved further north; she was without a car; her visits became infrequent.  Mr de Laat also described Ms Axsel’s visits as being more social than caring, such as walking together to the shops or going for a drink at the surf club. 

[4]        T2

14.     When the hearing commenced in September 2007, however, Ms Axsel claimed that she had been able to contact Mr de Laat at the nursing home in Mudgeeraba where he now resides, and that he had agreed to sign a statement.[5]  This statement made reference to Mr de Laat’s written statement taken by a Centrelink officer on 8 August 2006.[6]   The earlier statement recorded that Mr de Laat had known Ms Axsel for several years and had asked her to be his carer at the time he was living at Nerang.  The statement continued:

When I lived at 13/15 Cotton St, Nerang she came around to see me once or twice a fortnight and would stay for a maximum of about two hours.  When she visited me at Nerang she helped me with the clothes washing a few times if I had started a load. She never cooked for me, she never had to help me with bathing or getting dressed.  Sometimes she took me to get groceries, but then she lost her licence.  Apart from the small amount of clothes that she washed and the trips to the supermarket, Helen did not help me at any more.  Since I have moved to my current address, [that is, at Miami] Helen has only visited me three or four times for maybe one or two hours each time…

In the last couple of years I have been admitted to hospital about 34 times.  This has mainly been at the Gold Coast Hospital, but I have also stayed at the Robina Hospital for three months… 

[5]        Exhibit A2

[6]        T32, p 133.

15.     The claims that relevantly apply to the period for this part of the overall debt, are claims dated 16 December 2004 (carer allowance) and 29 December 2004 (carer payment).  In each case Mr de Laat’s address is 2/9 Christine Ave Miami.  That is, for the period to which this part of the debt relates, Mr de Laat had already left Nerang, a move which he consistently identifies as the turning point in the amount of care Ms Axsel provided to him. 

16.     The latest statement reads as follows:[7]

I, Peter de Laat, wish to place on record that the statement I signed on 8 August 2006 is not completely true.

The statement was written by a man from Centrelink who told me to sign it.

When I received a copy of the statement sometime later and read it, I was shocked at what I had been told to sign.

Helen Axsel cared for me until May 2006 when my neighbour applied to become my carer.  My health had deteriorated to the extent that I needed someone who lived locally, as I often fell during the night, and she would assist me as Helen lived elsewhere……

[7]        Exhibit A2

17.     The provision of this new statement is somewhat curious.  Without anything further, it is difficult to ascertain what might possibly be meant by the assertion that the previous statement was not completely true.  The respondent did not object to the tender of this statement, but in the context of other documented contacts with Mr de Laat in this case, and given what he said in his written statement of 8 August 2006, I am not prepared to rely upon this new document, without some evidence from its purported author.  This latest statement contains no details about care in the relevant period.  It suggests nothing which might lead me to conclude that what Mr de Laat has told Centrelink in the past was untrue.  Importantly, Mr de Laat’s reference to care extending to May 2006 is at odds with Ms Axsel’s admission at the hearing that she was not caring for Mr de Laat from the beginning of 2006.

18.     Ms L Walker, a friend of Ms Axsel and Mr de Laat, and Mr van Tilburg also gave evidence.  Their evidence did not assist me in any significant way to understand the extent of any carer role after Mr de Laat moved away from Nerang.  Ms Walker’s evidence seemed to relate largely to the period that Mr de Laat lived at Nerang, which pre-dates the relevant period.  Mr van Tilburg said that he did not really know Mr de Laat and he relied on what Ms Axsel told him.  Their evidence, as a result, was of little assistance. 

19.     The respondent’s case rested solely on the documentary materials.  From those documents I make the following findings:

§  when Ms Axsel made her claim in December 2004 as Mr de Laat’s carer, the claim appears to have been granted on the basis of her evidence only. 

§  had the information provided by Ms Axsel in her claim form been true (and remained true) she would have been entitled to the payments she then received for Mr de Laat until May 2006.  However I was satisfied, based upon on Mr de Laat’s statement to Centrelink on 8 August 2006, that shortly after the claim was made, Mr de Laat moved to Miami and Ms Axsel was not then in a position to provide the level of care that she might have been providing to him at an earlier time and which would qualify her for carer payment and carer allowance for him.  This was because about the same time, Ms Axsel had moved further away from Mr de Laat; she also had lost her licence and no longer had a car.

20.       I do not accept Ms Axsel’s evidence that she continued to provide care to Mr de Laat that would qualify her for continued payments of carer payment and carer allowance.  I prefer Mr de Laat’s written statement of 8 August 2006 as describing the circumstances correctly.  The substance of that statement is consistent with what Mr de Laat has said each time he has been contacted – namely that he saw Ms Axsel infrequently after he moved to Miami, and that Ms Axsel’s support of him was social support rather than being a carer. I do not accept Ms Axsel's evidence presented at the hearing that she was seeing Mr de Laat seven days a week.  If this was ever true, I do not accept it as true for the period of the debt, which comes after he moved to Miami. 

21.     Having concluded that Ms Axsel was not qualified for the payments she received I was satisfied that there was a debt of carer payment and carer allowance that arises under s 1223 of the Act.  That section provides that recoverable debts arise where a person is not entitled to payment.  Ms Axsel was not entitled and her payments were correctly cancelled on 7 June 2006 (carer payment) and 14 June 2006 (carer allowance). 

WAIVER OF DEBT

22.     I was reasonably satisfied that the debt has been correctly calculated as set out in detail in the MultiCal – Centrelink Debt Calculator.[8] 

[8]        Annexure 2 to Exhibit R3.

23.     It remains to consider whether the debt with reference to Mr de Laat should be recovered.  There are two bases on which non-recovery of the debt might occur – one is that of “sole administrative error”; the other is “special circumstances”.

24.     This debt in relation to Mr de Laat did not arise solely on the basis of Commonwealth administrative error.  I certainly take into account that Ms Axsel’s payment appears to have been poorly administered by Centrelink and she would be understandably aggrieved that no action was taken by Centrelink once serious questions arose during the review conducted in June 2005.  There is no explanation for the failure to investigate Ms Axsel’s entitlements at that time, once Mr de Laat informed them that Ms Axsel was not caring for him in any meaningful sense.  This has meant that the debt has increased significantly, by a further year of payments, while Centrelink did nothing to investigate the situation to which it had been alerted.

25.     However I was satisfied that Ms Axsel did not tell Centrelink when the care arrangements changed, despite having been sent numerous letters by Centrelink setting out her responsibilities, including that she must tell them if the care she was providing changed.  In these circumstances I was satisfied that Ms Axsel contributed to the debt.  It did not arise solely from administrative error.  

26.     This is not a case where the circumstances of write-off arise (s 1236 of the Act).  It remains, therefore, for me to consider whether the debt should be waived on the grounds of special circumstances.  The case law acknowledges that the expression special circumstances is incapable of precise or exhaustive definition.[9]The discretion addresses any circumstances that distinguish a particular case from the usual, which might justify a departure from the rule by which overpayments should be recovered from the person who received it.  The discretion has also been described as one to avoid unfairness.[10] 

[9]        Re Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD 1 at 3.

[10]        Groth v Department of Social Security (1995) 40 ALD 541 at 545.

27.     At the hearing Ms Axsel did not refer to any significant financial difficulties.  Ms Axsel has some health problems; however on balance I was satisfied that the money which should not have been paid to her as a carer for Mr de Laat should be recovered from her. The moneys are being recovered from her at a reasonable rate, and she can continue to negotiate the amounts of her repayments with Centrelink as the need arises.  As Ms Axsel currently receives Centrelink payments these provide an appropriate means for recovering the debt, at a rate suitable to her circumstances. 

28.     As will be seen from the reasons below, Centrelink will need to recalculate the total amount of Ms Axsel’s debt because I have concluded that the payments for care provided to her parents should not have been cancelled.  I turn now to that question, the subject of Application Q2007/27.

CARER PAYMENT AND CARER ALLOWANCE FOR MS AXSEL’S PARENTS

29.     This review relates to Centrelink’s cancellation of Ms Axsel’s claim as a carer for her parents. Ms Axsel told me that Centrelink reinstated her payments of carer payment and carer allowance for the care she provides to her parents with effect from June 2007.[11]  This resumption of her payments raised questions in my mind about whether the decision to cancel the payments made in August 2006 was correct (and, it follows, the decision to impose a debt upon her for the period May 2006 to August 2006).  The resumption of her payments comes about within a period some 9 or 10 months of the cancellation. That is a relatively short period.  I was not told of any particular deterioration in the health of either Mr or Mrs Walton that took place in that time, such as might explain the reinstatement.

[11]        Annexure 1 to Exhibit R3.

30.     In May 2006 Ms Axsel completed a combined claim form for carer payment and carer allowance in relation to her parents.  Ms Axsel’s parents are in their eighties, but live together at home, albeit with some community supports such as assistance from Meals on Wheels.  The claims were granted.  However it seems that soon after granting her claim, Centrelink suspended her carer payments,[12] pending enquiries.   

[12]        Letter dated 21 June 2006 T16

31.     As I understand the respondent’s case it is that, as to the period from May 2006 to August 2006, even if Ms Axsel was spending 20 hours per week with her parents, the kind of care she offered to them did not fall within the relevant criteria.

32.     As with Application 2007/1753 the respondent relied solely on the documentary materials.  Ms Axsel, however, gave evidence at the hearing, as did her father.  A number of supporting affidavits have been sworn since the cancellation decision, attesting to Ms Axsel’s care of her parents.[13] 

[13]        T45,T46,T47,T48 – 2007/1753

33.     Ms Axsel said that during 2006 her father was requiring more care than he had in the past.  She acknowledged he required more care than her mother.  I note in that regard that the claim form[14] (which is a combined claim form for carer allowance and carer payment) stated that her father struggled to walk, suffered from hearing impairment and was incontinent.  It was stated that Ms Axsel’s mother suffered from high blood pressure as well as osteoarthritis of her back, hips and knees which caused her to fall.  Ms Axsel indicated in her claim that her father needed help to move around the house, but Ms Axsel acknowledged that her father was able to manage personal hygiene.  Ms Axsel’s answers to questions in relation to her mother indicated that her mother was quite independent and able to look after herself.

[14]        T8, p 36.

34.     Ms Axsel provided rather a more detailed, but in some respects contradictory, picture in relation to care provided to her mother in a carer allowance questionnaire dated 16 May 2006.[15]  Ms Axsel there stated that she spent one hour per day seven days a week assisting her mother with mobility, three hours per day seven days a week assisting her with “communication” and half an hour per day seven days a week assisting with her “behaviour management”.  Her answers as to care provided everyday to her father were similar, although she additionally referred to providing therapy to him in the form of massaging his legs to improve circulation, for half an hour daily.

[15]        T26  (2007/1753)

35.     Dr Ernest Finberg completed medical assessments in relation to both parents.  Dr Finberg stated that Mrs Walton did not require constant care and attention and was independent in all bodily functions but unable to manage stairs without assistance.[16]  Dr Finberg considered, on the other hand, that Mr Walton required constant care, daily, to carry out routine personal activities and to avoid coming to harm.[17]  Dr Finberg confirmed that Mr Walton was bladder incontinent, and required help with walking. 

[16]        T12

[17]        T13

36.     Apparently on the basis of the information from Ms Axsel and Dr Finberg Centrelink decided in June 2006 that Ms Axsel was entitled to both carer payment and carer allowance.[18]I note that there were cautionary remarks expressed on Centrelink computer records to the effect that Ms Axsel’s claims for her parents should be considered on their merits, even though Centrelink was investigating her for fraud on her claims for Mr de Laat. However Centrelink officers were instructed not to tell Ms Axsel about the other investigation.[19]  (It will be recalled that it was about this time that Centrelink received a carer claim from another carer, not Ms Axsel, that led Centrelink to investigate Ms Axsel’s care of Mr de Laat).  In this context, I have no doubt that Centrelink carefully assessed whether Ms Axsel should be paid for caring for her parents.  However by late-August 2006 Centrelink decided to cancel her payments. 

[18]        T15,  T18, T19, T20

[19]        T58 p 235-236.

37.     It never became clear quite what led to the cancellation. There was no medical review.  There was nothing in the documentary materials that suggested that Centrelink contacted Dr Finberg in relation to the decision.  Dr Finberg reiterated in a letter dated 26 September 2006 that Mr and Mrs Walton were suffering from chronic disabilities and were in need of carer assistance.[20] The respondent did not present any medical evidence suggesting otherwise. 

[20]        Exhibit A1, p 36

38.     I am mindful, however, and have stated that some of Ms Axsel’s presented material referring to the care she was providing was ambiguous, and led to Centrelink making further enquiries with her parents.  On 11 August 2006, a Centrelink officer took a written statement from Mr and Mrs Walton, to the effect that Ms Axsel would come to their home if they telephoned her, which might be twice weekly, and would stay for the morning and help with cooking, cleaning and shopping.[21]  On that occasion their estimate of the time involved was between 15 and 20 hours per week.  This was rather less than the time Ms Axsel had indicated in the claim form, referred to above (at para 34), but it was not that much less as would be appropriate to take the step of cancelling the payment, bearing in mind the independent medical evidence.

[21]        T34, p 136 (Q2007/1753)

39.     Mr Walton said in his oral evidence that the taker of the statement at T34 did not give them a chance to read it.  Mr Walton says now that the true position was that his daughter would visit every day except Sunday and she would come back again if he or his wife had fallen after she had left.  Mr Walton said the only day she did not come was Sundays.  Mr Walton also swore an affidavit dated 4 December 2006 and gave evidence by phone to the first Social Security Appeals Tribunal hearing which suggested the hours were somewhat less than 20 per week, but at another point estimated more than thirty hours per week.[22]  

[22] T2 Q2007/27, p 8

40.     Mr Walton told the next Social Security Appeals Tribunal hearing (3 April 2007) that his daughter came to the house at least five or six days per week from 9am to 4pm most days and they would not manage without her assistance.  The Social Security Appeals Tribunal unhesitatingly accepted Mr Walton’s evidence as honestly given, even allowing for the fact that at times his memory might be straining to recall past events.  Mr Walton’s evidence given to this Tribunal was not seriously challenged in cross-examination.

41.     Mr B van Tilburg and Mr M Burcul each swore affidavits stating that Ms Axsel cared for her parents on a daily basis.[23]  Mr van Tilburg stated that he had seen Ms Axsel assisting her parents including helping her father dress, massaging his legs and preparing food for both parents as well as organising nurses to visit them. 

[23] T38, T 39

42.     It is in the context of the evidence given by Ms Axsel, her parents and Dr Finberg, as well as those who have made statements attesting to the care provided that I must examine the correctness of the cancellation decision.  I have referred to the circumstances of the claim being granted and observe that it is well recognised that an applicant for a benefit must satisfy the decision maker that he or she meets the qualifying criteria in the legislation.  I considered that Centrelink correctly decided to grant the payments to Ms Axsel with respect to her parents.  That decision was supported by the medical evidence from the general practitioner. He confirmed his views in September 2006.[24]

[24] Exhibit A1, p 36

43.     The principles to be applied when the decision under review is one to cancel a payment have been considered by the Federal Court in McDonald v Director-General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354. McDonald’s case is authority firstly for the principle that there is no formal onus upon the parties in the setting of administrative review as may apply in other areas of the law, but secondly that there is a practical requirement about evidence depending upon whether the matter under consideration is a claim for a payment or a decision that a payment, once granted, should be cancelled.  In McDonald the Court referred to the circumstances where a decision-maker may be undecided one way or another, setting out that it is important to take into account the nature of the decision under review.  If, on the other hand, the decision concerns a cancellation, then the decision to cancel should not be taken.

44. On the basis of the evidence before me, I conclude that the preferable decision was not to cancel the payments of carer allowance and carer payment in August 2006. I was satisfied that the level of care that Ms Axsel was giving to her parents and the nature of it met the qualification requirements for each payment as set out in s 198 and s 954A of the Act and in accordance with the Secretary’s published guidelines, to which I was referred at T4 of the documents (2007/1753).  In so deciding I recognise that Ms Axsel may have overstated the needs of her parents at times in the course of her claim, but it was evident from the support for the claim provided by Dr Finberg that Ms Axsel’s parents required constant care and that in particular Mr Walton required care with respect to bodily functions and to prevent harm.  In forming these conclusions I observe that there is considerable consistency between Ms Axsel’s claims about the care she provided (T8 and T9) and Dr Finberg’s assessment of the care required (T12 and T13).

45.     I was satisfied on the evidence presented that Ms Axsel did provide the necessary amounts of care to qualify for carer payment and carer allowance.

46.     For these reasons I set aside the cancellation decision made on 24 August 2006 and substitute the decision that the payments of carer payment and carer allowance should not have been cancelled.  As I have indicated above, this decision affects the overall calculation of the debt in Application 2007/1753.

DECISION

47.     With reference to Application Q2007/27, the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review, that is, the decision dated 24 August 2006 cancelling the applicant’s carer payment and carer allowance for her parents, and substitutes the decision that those payments should not have been cancelled.

With reference to Application 2007/1753, the Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review and remits them to the respondent to recalculate the applicant’s debt of carer payment and carer allowance in accordance with the following directions:

§  that Ms Axsel has incurred a debt of carer payment and carer allowance being all such payments made to her with respect to Mr Peter de Laat after 29 December 2004 and until these payments were cancelled;

§  that Ms Axsel has incurred no debt of carer payment and carer allowance with respect to her parents (Q 2007/27).

This debt, once recalculated, is to be recovered from the applicant.

I certify that the preceding 47 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Ms M J Carstairs.

Signed:……………………………………………………...
  Legal Research Officer

Dates of Hearing  26 September 2007
Date of Decision  4 December 2007
The Applicant was unrepresented
For the Respondent                  Mr M Black, departmental advocate