Barrett and Department of Family and Community Services

[2001] AATA 926

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 926

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No D2001/8

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION       )          
           Re      JO-ANNE BARRETT        
  Applicant
           And    SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES        
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal       Mr. D.W. Muller, Senior Member

Date8 November 2001

PlaceBrisbane

Decision      The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.           

............(Signed)..................................
  D.W. MULLER
  SENIOR MEMBER

CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – overpayment due to misunderstanding – no waiver
Social Security Act 1991: s.1223(5)

REASONS FOR DECISION

8 November 2001   Mr. D.W. Muller, Senior Member             

1. This is an application to review a decision to raise and recover an overpayment of parenting payment in the sum of $390.60, received by the applicant, Jo-Anne Barrett, between 18 June 1998 and 27 August 1998.

2. The applicant gave evidence at the hearing.  The Tribunal accepts the applicant as an honest and reliable witness.  The Tribunal makes the following finding of facts:

   (i)Ms. Barrett claimed parenting payment partnered (PPP) in respect of Carlitta, the grand daughter of her partner, Thomas Barlow, on 30 April 1998.

   (ii)As at 30 April 1998 Thomas Barlow was employed.  His income was such that Centrelink granted PPP to Ms. Barrett at the basic rate.

   (iii)On 11 June 1998, Ms. Barrett commenced part-time employment with a snack bar in Alice Springs.

   (iv)Within one week of commencing work at the snack bar, Ms. Barrett informed Centrelink about her job.  She was told by an officer of Centrelink to get a statement of earnings from her employer.  Ms. Barrett obtained a brief hand written note to the effect that she would be likely to get about 9 to 15 hours of work each week and be paid about $10.00 per hour.  She handed the hand-written note to an officer of Centrelink.

   (v)In the first week of work Ms. Barrett received $51.80.

   (vi)Ms. Barrett was told by the officer at Centrelink that she was not earning enough to affect her PPP.

   (vii)Ms. Barrett worked for a further 11 weeks at the snack bar.  In those weeks her hours of work increased and she earned a total of $3,055.91.

   (viii)Ms. Barrett continued to be paid PPP at the basic rate of $65.10 per fortnight even though her increased income should have meant that the rate of PPP was reduced to nil.

   (ix)On 25 August 1998 Ms. Barrett told Centrelink that she had obtained full-time work at Yuendumu in the Northern Territory and that she would no longer be entitled to PPP from 31 August 1998.

   (x)The last payment of PPP to Ms. Barrett was made on 27 August 1998.

   (xi)Ms. Barrett had been paid PPP between 16 June 1998 and 27 August 1998 to the extent of $390.60 more than she was entitled to.  The PPP had been paid into a joint account in the names of Ms. Barrett and Mr. Barlow.  Neither of them paid any attention to the payments and they made no assessments one way or the other as to whether Ms. Barrett was entitled to the PPP.

   (xii)For some reason, not apparent to the Tribunal, Centrelink wrote to Ms. Barrett's old address in Alice Springs on 25 August 1998 to tell her the PPP would cease.  Ms. Barrett never received the letter.

   (xiii)On 27 August 1998, Centrelink wrote to the owner of the snack bar to supply a statement of Ms. Barrett's earnings.  The owner replied with the required information on 2 September 1998.

   (xiv)An overpayment was raised in February 1999.  Notification was sent to Ms. Barrett on 9 March 1999 at her old address in Alice Springs.  She never received it.

   (xv)Eventually a debt collector agency contacted Ms. Barrett about the debt on 5 September 2000.

3. The Tribunal is satisfied that:

   (i)There was some confusion between Ms. Barrett and the officer at Centrelink in June 1998 about the earnings of Ms. Barrett at the snack bar and the effect those earnings would have on the PPP.

   (ii)As a result of that confusion Ms. Barrett was overpaid $390.60.

   (iii)The overpayment is a debt due to the Commonwealth because of the provisions of s.1223(5) of the Social Security Act 1991.

   "1223.(5)  If:
   (a)     an amount (the received amount) has been paid to a person by way of social security payment on or after 1 October 1997 or by way of fares allowance;  and
   (b)     because the received amount had not been correctly calculated using the relevant rate calculator or other provision for calculating the amount, or for any other reason, the received amount is greater than the amount (the correct amount) of social security payment or fares allowance that should have been paid to the person;
   the difference between the received amount and the correct amount is a debt due to the Commonwealth."

(iv)None of the waiver provisions in the said Act apply to Ms. Barrett's situation.

1. The decision under review is affirmed.

   I certify that the 4 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr. D.W. Muller, Senior Member

   Signed:         .....................................................................................
              B. Hitchcock, Secretary

   Date/s of Hearing  23 October 2001
   Date of Decision  8 November 2001
   Applicant  Ms. Barrett, in person
   Respondent  Mr. P. Kanowski, departmental advocate