Elskaf and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an appeal by Jamal and Ferdous Elskaf (the Applicants) against decisions made by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services concerning overpayments of Disability Support Pension (DSP). The core of the dispute revolved around whether a property at 48 Heckenberg should be considered an asset for the purpose of assessing the Applicants' entitlement to DSP, whether deposits into their joint bank account constituted income, and consequently, whether the Applicants owed debts to the Commonwealth. The case was heard by Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were threefold: first, whether the 48 Heckenberg property should be treated as an asset of the Applicants for the period between 7 December 2010 and 4 October 2016; second, whether deposits into the Applicants' joint Commonwealth Bank account should be considered income for the period between 16 September 2009 and 6 December 2010; and third, whether the Applicants had been overpaid $95,186.14 and consequently owed debts to the Commonwealth, and if so, whether these debts should be recovered.

The Tribunal noted a significant lack of documentary evidence from the Applicants, relying heavily on the previous decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT1). The Applicants contended that the AAT1 had erred in its determination of beneficial ownership of the 48 Heckenberg property and in its assessment of income from bank deposits. The Department argued that the Applicants had failed to provide required information regarding their assets and income, leading to the suspension of their DSP payments and the raising of debts. The Tribunal considered new evidence regarding a recalculation of the debts, which resulted in a figure of $95,186.14 for each Applicant, and determined this recalculated debt was relevant to the current review.