Cosgrove and Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment

This matter concerned an application for review by the Applicant, Ms Cosgrove, of a decision by the Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment, to refuse to re-credit her VET FEE-HELP balance. The Applicant sought the removal of an $18,000 VET FEE-HELP debt incurred in 2015 for a Diploma of Business Administration course with ACTE Pty Ltd (Evocca College). Despite the Applicant's assertions of inappropriate conduct by the provider, she had completed the course and received her diploma. The VET Student Loans Ombudsman had previously recommended against re-crediting her balance, a view affirmed by the Respondent. The Applicant subsequently applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of this decision.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Applicant's application for review had no reasonable prospect of success, thereby justifying its dismissal under section 42B(1)(b) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to determine if it was satisfied to a high degree of certainty that the Applicant could not succeed in her claim for the re-crediting of her VET FEE-HELP debt, even if the matter proceeded to a full hearing. The Tribunal was also required to consider the specific criteria for re-crediting a FEE-HELP balance under clause 46AA of Schedule 1A to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth).

The Tribunal reasoned that the discretion to re-credit a FEE-HELP balance under clause 46AA(1) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) is contingent on two cumulative requirements: that the student either did not complete the unit of study, or can be taken not to have completed it, and that it is reasonably likely that the VET provider or their agent engaged in inappropriate conduct. The Tribunal noted that while it acknowledged the Applicant's frustration and the potential for misleading conduct by the provider, the Applicant had in fact completed the units of study and received her diploma. Applying the established interpretation of clause 46AA, which provides redress for students who have accumulated debt without deriving benefit from the course, the Tribunal found that as the Applicant had completed the course requirements, the substantive matter lacked merit and therefore had no reasonable prospect of success.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that the application for review be dismissed pursuant to section 42B(1)(b) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.