Buckley and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations

[2006] AATA 549

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 549

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          N2006/211     

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		MISS JOAN BUCKLEY

Applicant

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal  Ms N Isenberg, Member

Date 23 June 2006

PlaceSydney

Decision The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[Sgd] Ms N Isenberg, Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – newstart allowance – Rental Assistance – decision under review concerning the rental assistance component of Applicant’s newstart allowance – Applicant contends she has been underpaid rental assistance – consideration of evidence – calculation of rental assistance component - decision under review affirmed.

Social Security Act 1991 – section 1070Q(2)

REASONS FOR DECISION

23 June 2006 Ms N Isenberg, Member

1.      Miss Buckley contends that she has been underpaid rental assistance.

ISSUE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL

2.      Whether the decision to pay Miss Buckley rent assistance (as a component of newstart allowance) at a rate of $47.25 per fortnight from 20 March 2005 to 19 September 2005 and $46.35 per fortnight from 20 September 2005 was correct.

BACKGROUND

3.      There was no dispute as to the following facts:

·Miss Buckley has been paid newstart allowance since 1993.

·Since January 1998 she has paid $75 per week rent for her accommodation and has received rent assistance.

·In January 2005, Miss Buckley completed a questionnaire about her accommodation and confirmed that she was still paying $75 per week rent.

·Centrelink paid Miss Buckley rent assistance, as a component of her newstart allowance of $47.25 per fortnight from 20 March 2005 to 19 September 2005 and $46.35 per fortnight from 20 September 2005. 

·At Miss Buckley’s request Centrelink reviewed its decision about the rent assistance and affirmed the decision, as did an Authorised Review Officer. 

·On 6 February 2006, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“SSAT”) also affirmed the decision. 

CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE

4.      I had before me documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunals Act 1975 ("the T-documents").  Ms Buckley gave sworn evidence and also provided voluminous material prior to the hearing. (A further document was lodged the following day). I took into account all this material.

5.      At the hearing there was some discussion as to the relevance of the date from which Miss Buckley’s rental assistance was reviewed.  She said she had lodged a rental assistance questionnaire on or about 25 January 2005.  There was no evidence as to when it was received by Centrelink.  After the hearing Miss Buckley provided me with an additional copy.  Also after the hearing Mr Zhang informed me that Miss Buckley had lodged a number of rental assistance questionnaires, for reasons which are unclear.  Her rental assistance was only reviewed from 20 March 2005, because that was when a change in rental assistance rate occurred.

6. Section 1070Q(2) of the Social Security Act 1991 (“the Act”) provides a table to work out a person’s rate of rent assistance.

7.      For a person like Miss Buckley who is a single person, not a member of a couple and with no dependents the rate is calculated as follows:

3 x [Fortnightly rent - $88.20]

4

8.      Using the formula, Miss Buckley’s rent assistance entitlement for the period 20 March 2005 to 19 September 2005 was as follows:

Ÿ  Fortnightly rent:   $150.00 

Ÿ  Rent threshold (amount below which no rent assistance is paid)            $87.00 per fortnight;

Ÿ  Maximum rent assistance entitlement -   $98.00 per fortnight.

3 x [fortnightly rent - $87.00]  =  fortnightly rent assistance entitlement

4

3 x [$150.00 - $87.00] =  $47.25
  4

9.      Using the formula, Miss Buckley’s rent assistance entitlement from 20 September 2005 is as follows:

Ÿ  Fortnightly Rent:   $150.00 

Ÿ  Rent threshold (amount below which no rent assistance is paid)             $88.20 per fortnight (increased from $87.00);

Ÿ  Maximum rent assistance entitlement per fortnight:   $99.20

3 x [fortnightly rent - $88.20] =    fortnightly rent assistance entitlement
  4

3 x [$150.00 - $88.20]   =     $46.35
  4

10.     Therefore the relevant rent assistance rate was $47.25 per fortnight for the period 20 March 2005 to 19 September 2005 and $46.35 per fortnight from 20 September 2005. Therefore I find that between 20 March 2005 and 19 September 2005, and from 20 September 2005, Miss Buckley received her correct rate of newstart allowance, which included her rent assistance. 

11.     Miss Buckley was very concerned that her rental assistance had been inappropriately paid elsewhere.

12.     I observe that Centrelink’s payment summary screen printouts (T19, pgs 44-45) show the payments were made to her at the above rates.  In addition Miss Buckley’s St George Bank statements (T21, pgs 74-109) show that the monies were deposited into her account at the relevant rates. 

13.     Therefore Miss Buckley’s concerns that she has been paid less than she is entitled to and that her rental assistance money has been paid to other funds are ill-founded.

14.     So as to be completely clear as to Miss Buckley’s entitlements during the period of her complaints, I asked Mr Zhang to calculate Miss Buckley’s entitlement to rental assistance from the date of the rental assistance questionnaire.  After the hearing he provided the information for which I made the following calculations.

15.     Using the formula, Miss Buckley’s rent assistance entitlement for the period I January 2005 to 19 March 2005 was as follows:

Ÿ  Fortnightly rent:    $150.00

Ÿ  Rent threshold (amount below which no rent assistance is paid)            $86.00 per fortnight:

Ÿ  Maximum rent assistance entitlement per fortnight:   $98.00

3 x [fortnightly rent - $86.00]  =  fortnightly rent assistance entitlement
  4

3 x [$150.00 - $86.00]   =  $48
  4

16.     In addition the information to hand is also that she was paid $48.00 by way of rental assistance for the period 1 January 2005 to 19 March 2005.

DECISION

17.     The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the 17 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of MS N ISENBERG, MEMBER

Signed:         Associate

Date of Hearing  8 June 2006   
Date of Decision  23 June 2006
Representative for the Applicant               Ms J Buckley, Self-Represented
Advocate for the Respondent                    Mr A Zhang, Centrelink