Bloore and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services

[2004] AATA 835

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 835

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL        Nº V2004/282

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

Re:         STANLEY EDWARD BLOORE

Applicant

And:SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal:       G.D. Friedman, Member

Date:             10 August 2004

Place:            Melbourne

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

(sgd) G.D. Friedman
  Member

SOCIAL SECURITY - crisis payment - whether half of fortnightly single age pension correct calculation

Social Security Act 1991 ss 1061JH(1), 1061JU(1), (4), 1064

REASONS FOR DECISION

10 August 2004  G.D. Friedman, Member

1.      This is an application by Stanley Edward Bloore (the applicant) for review of a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) dated 29 January 2004.  The SSAT affirmed a decision of an authorised review officer of Centrelink dated 19 November 2003p to pay a crisis payment to the applicant at half the fortnightly rate of maximum basic rate of single pension. 

2.      At the hearing on 9 August 2004 the applicant attended by telephone and represented himself, and Ms E. King, a Centrelink advocate, represented the Secretary to the Department of Family and Community Services (the respondent).

3. The Tribunal received into evidence the documents lodged under s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T1‑T19).

BACKGROUND

4.      The applicant was born on 17 September 1927.  In 2003 he was receiving age pension at the single rate.  On 11 September 2003 his home was destroyed by fire.  On 12 September 2003 the applicant made a claim for crisis payment, and on the  same day Centrelink made a crisis payment of $218.05 to him.  On 19 November 2003 an authorised review officer affirmed the decision.

5.      On 4 December 2003 the applicant sought review of the decision by the SSAT.  On 29 January 2004 the SSAT affirmed the decision.  The applicant lodged an application with the Tribunal on 26 February 2004 for review of the SSAT decision.

6.      The issue before the Tribunal is the rate of crisis payment payable to the applicant.   

EVIDENCE

7.      In oral evidence the applicant said that he had been living in a bungalow on a property near Halls Gap since about 1987.  He told the Tribunal that on 11 September 2003, while he was cutting wood on the property, a fire destroyed all his possessions, which he valued at about $17,000.  He had no insurance.  The applicant explained that the Salvation Army had provided him with clothes, but he had no money to replace his possessions.  He said that after the fire he had received $500 as an advance on his pension, and that he had repaid this amount to Centrelink.

8.      The applicant stated that he wished to remain on the property, and is living in two disused motor vehicles under difficult financial circumstances.  He said that he receives about $565 per fortnight and pays rent of about $230 per fortnight.  He explained that he is repairing the bungalow roof and does not expect his landlady to meet the cost because she is also a pensioner and has other financial commitments.   He emphasised that the crisis payment was insufficient to cover his losses, and he felt that Centrelink and the Government should provide greater assistance to pensioners in situations such as this.

CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES

9. Section 1061JH of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) sets out the qualification for crisis payment:

1061JH.(1)   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 circumstance 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 is 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.p

10. Under s 1061JU(1) of the Act, the amount of crisis payment payable to a person is half the fortnightly amount at the maximum basic rate of the pension payable to the person. Under s 1061JU(4), the maximum basic rate is calculated using Module B of the Rate Calculator in s 1064 of the Act.

11.     In reaching its decision the Tribunal takes into account the oral and written evidence and submissions made at the hearing. 

12.     At the time of the applicant’s claim for crisis payment the basic amount payable to a single person in receipt of age pension was $423.80 per fortnight.  Half this amount is $211.90 and the Tribunal finds that this was the applicant’s entitlement.  The Tribunal notes that the applicant received $218.05, which is $6.15 in excess of his entitlement, and that the respondent does not seek to recover the excess amount.

13.     The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that he lost all his possessions in the fire and that the rate of crisis payment did not cover the value of those items.  However, there is no provision in the legislation for crisis payment to cover all losses. 

DECISION

14.     The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the fourteen [14] preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision of:

G.D. Friedman, Member

(sgd)       Catherine Thomas

Clerk

Date of hearing:  09 August 2004

Date of decision:  10 August 2004
Advocate for applicant:                Self‑represented
Advocate for respondent:            Ms E. King, Centrelink