Halaby and Department of Family and Community Services

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 520

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No. N1999/1224

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION          )
           Re      Morris HALABY
  Applicant
           And    SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mrs M T Lewis, Senior Member

Date13 June 2001
PlaceSydney

Decision      The Tribunal sets aside the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal dated 29 June 1999 and the primary decision of a delegate of the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services dated 25 September 1998 to recover an assurance of support debt of $5,422.47 payable by Morris Halaby ("the Applicant"); and substitutes therefor its decision that part of the debt, being an amount of $2,711.27, be waived, and that an amount of $2,711.20 be recovered from the Applicant as a debt owing to the Commonwealth.
  ..............................................
  M T Lewis
  Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Applicant owed debt to Commonwealth under "assurance of support" – whether debt should be waived in part or in whole because of "special circumstances" – Applicant had no knowledge that debt was being incurred

Hassan v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (1999) 95 FCR 26
Re Haykal and Secretary, Department of Social Security (1996) 41 ALD 189
Re Lamvohee and Secretary, Department of Social Security (AAT 12166, 28 August 1997)
Re Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and El Hawli (now known as Hassan) (1998) 53 ALD 243

Social Security Act 1991: ss1227(1), 1236(1A), 1237(1), 1237A(1), 1237AAD.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mrs M T Lewis, Senior Member

This is a review of a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal ("the SSAT") dated 29 June 1999, that affirmed a primary decision of a delegate of the Secretary to the Department of Family and Community Services ("the Respondent"), dated 25 September 1998 to recover an assurance of support debt of $5,422.47. That decision was affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer on 16 April 1999. Morris Halaby ("the Applicant") lodged an application for review by this Tribunal on 12 August 1999.
The Tribunal had before it documents provided by the Respondent pursuant to s37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The Applicant gave oral evidence at the hearing. Adnan Halaby, the Applicant's brother, also gave oral evidence and his statement dated 10 May 2000 was tendered as evidence on behalf of the Applicant (exhibit A). Hala Halaby (formerly Hala Salibi), Adnan Halaby's wife, gave telephone evidence at the hearing. A statement of Amrit Jagota (also known as Richard Jagota), an officer of Centrelink, dated 18 July 2000 (exhibit 1) was tendered as evidence on behalf of the Respondent, and he also gave oral evidence. The original claim for Newstart Allowance made by Hala Halaby (exhibit 2) was tendered on behalf of the Respondent.
background facts
From 7 February 1997 to 13 November 1997, Hala Halaby received $5,422.47 in Newstart Allowance. On 25 November 1998 a delegate of the Respondent decided that the Applicant had to repay this amount to the Commonwealth because of an assurance of support in respect of Hala Halaby that he signed on 29 May 1996. In that document, the Applicant undertook to repay the Commonwealth any money paid to Hala Halaby in benefits under the Social Security Act 1991 ("the Act"). This included Newstart Allowance. The assurance of support was for a period of two years commencing from either a grant of a relevant visa to Hala Halaby or her entry into Australia, whichever was the later. The Respondent's case is that the assurance of support commenced on 17 August 1996 and therefore the amount of $5,422.47 received by Hala Halaby during the relevant period is a debt owed by the Applicant to the Commonwealth.
Hala Salibi (now Halaby) arrived in Australia on 18 August 1996 and married Adnan Halaby, the Applicant's brother, on 27 October 1996. She claimed Newstart Allowance on 7 February 1997. A decision to grant the claim was made by the Respondent on 2 February 1997 (T7). Hala Halaby received Newstart Allowance payments between 7 February 1997 and 13 November 1997. No inquiry was made by the Respondent prior to the decision to grant the claim about the existence of an assurance of support or the circumstances of the assuror - the Applicant. On 28 August 1998 the Assurance Support Section of Centrelink notified the Debt Recovery Unit that an Assurance of Support debt may exist in respect of the Applicant (T10). On 25 November 1998 the Applicant received a letter from Centrelink informing him that he owed an Assurance of Support debt in the amount of $5,422.47 in respect of social security payments made to Hala Halaby (T14). This was his first knowledge of any social security payments having been made.
evidence
Applicant
The Applicant said he signed the assurance of support document on being approached by his brother, Adnan Halaby. He said his relationship with his brother soured soon after his brother's marriage to Hala and contact between them then diminished. The breakdown in their relationship has been maintained to the present time. He was unaware that his brother and Hala Halaby were applying for social security benefits or that they were experiencing financial difficulties. He said he would have assisted them if he had been approached. However, he also said that had he understood that Hala Halaby would be applying for a social security benefit and if he had been advised of her claim, he would have cancelled his assurance of support.
The Applicant confirmed that he has the financial capacity to repay the debt but he has refused to pay in principle, claiming that he was notified of the debt two years after the money was paid to Hala Halaby.
Adnan Halaby
Adnan Halaby received social security benefits from 1 February 1997 to 13 November 1997. He confirmed that he requested the Applicant to sign an assurance of support document in support of his fiancee's application for a visa to come to Australia.
In early February 1997, after Hala Halaby was granted a permanent resident visa, Adnan and Hala Halaby attended Centrelink at Bankstown seeking to lodge a claim for social security payments. Adnan Halaby had earlier collected a claim form and partly completed it on his wife's behalf (as she did not speak or write English very well). He left some questions blank so he could obtain assistance during the interview at Centrelink.
Adnan and Hala Halaby were interviewed at Centrelink on 7 February 1997. In his Statement (exhibit A), Adnan Halaby recalled that a female officer assisted them in completing the form. However, in cross-examination he said he was unsure whether the interviewing officer was male or female.
Question 15 of Hala Halaby's claim form (exhibit 2) is:
Has anyone provided an assurance of support to cover the first 2 years of your settlement in Australia.
No › Yes ›

The "yes" box was ticked and a cross was placed through it, and the "no" box was ticked at the same question. Adnan Halaby could not remember how this had happened. He said he began to complete the form before he and his wife attended the interview at Centrelink, and the interviewing officer finished answering the questions for them. He could not recall the exact conversation that was had at the interview which led to the crossing out of the "yes" answer and a tick in the "no" box. He said he would not have tried to hide the fact that his brother had signed an assurance of support for his wife and he was "certain" he ticked the "yes" box in answer to the question on the claim form about assurance of support. However during cross-examination he was not "100 per cent" sure whether he ticked "yes". Nonetheless he was quite sure he had told the officer about the assurance of support. However, he said the officer did not seem to be interested. He said the officer did not ask him about the assurer.

Adnan Halaby recalled that after the officer discussed the claim with other staff, the officer returned and advised them that social security benefits could be paid immediately and that Hala Halaby did not have to wait for two years. She received her first social security payment about ten days after the interview.
Adnan Halaby confirmed the breakdown of the relationship between him and the Applicant soon after his marriage. He did not advise his brother about their intention to make a claim for a social security benefit. He was advised by his parents that the Applicant had received a letter from Centrelink saying he had to pay the money back but he did not speak to the Applicant directly. He said that he was not in financial difficulties in February 1997 and their reason for making a claim was based on media reports from the Senate about changes in the two year non-entitlement to social security requirement for people arriving in Australia.
Hala Halaby
Hala Halaby gave evidence by telephone at the hearing. She was aware of the assurance of support document sent to her by Adnan Halaby. She also confirmed that, after arriving in Australia and hearing the media reports about the Senate debate on the two year waiting period, she and her husband decided to lodge a social security claim. She said her husband filled out the claim form after reading the questions to her and ticked "yes" to question 15 on page 8 in relation to the existence of an Assurance of Support. She said she was not informed at Centrelink that the Applicant would have to pay back money, nor was she advised by Centrelink of the assurance of support.
Although Hala Halaby did not remember the gender of the interviewing officer in February 1997, she recalled that person telling them that the claim was approved and she would be entitled to payment immediately.
Amrit (also known as Richard) Jagota
Mr Jagota has been employed by the Department since June 1992. In February 1997 he was working as an Administrative Services Officer Class 3 in the Newstart Section at Bankstown. He was responsible for interviewing customers applying for Newstart related payments and reassessing entitlements in cases where their circumstances had changed.
Mr Jagota recalled interviewing Hala Halaby on 7 February 1997. However, he said that because this occurred almost 3½ years ago, he could not recall the exact discussion that took place.
Mr Jagota recognised his handwriting on the form and agreed that he assisted Hala Halaby in answering some of the questions on her claim form (exhibit 2). His recollection was that neither Hala nor Adnan Halaby raised the issue of an assurance of support having been signed on behalf of Hala Halaby by the Applicant. He said that having regard to the relevant legislation and departmental procedures, he would have sought more details from Hala Halaby about her assurance of support if he were made aware of it. He said it was his practice to adhere to the formal procedures in connection with assurance of support cases.
In relation to question 15 (exhibit 2), Mr Jagota said he could not recall the events that led to the "yes" response being crossed and a "no" response being ticked. He said it is his practice to screen the claim form thoroughly so as to ascertain if the claimant has made any changes on it. If any changes were made it was his practice to ask the claimant to initial the changes. Furthermore, he said that under no circumstances, in his capacity as an assessing officer, would he inform the claimant that she had an immediate entitlement to Newstart Allowance.
Mr Jagota could not recall whether, in relation to question 15, the tick in the "yes" or "no" box was present at the time of the interview and/or who made the changes to that question. He said the onus was on the customer to provide the correct information and the Department would process it on that basis. Mr Jagota said that there was no evidence on the form that would have caused him to consider an assurance of support in relation to Hala Halaby.
legislation
The Act provides, insofar as is relevant:
"General Definitions
23(1)   In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
assurance of support means an assurance of support within the meaning of the Migration (1989) Regulations or the Migration (1993) Regulations;
assurance of support debt means a debt due and payable by a person to the Commonwealth, or a liability of a person to the Commonwealth, because of the operation of:
(a)subregulation 165(1) of the Migration (1989) Regulations as in force on or before 19 December 1991; or
(b)regulation 164C of the Migration (1989) Regulations as in force after 19 December 1991 and before 1 February 1993; or
(c)Part 5 of the Migration (1993) Regulations as in force on or after 1 February 1993;
(ca)Division 7 of Part 2 of the Migration (1994) Regulations as in force on or after 1 September 1994;
in respect of the payment to another person of:
…
(e)newstart allowance under Part 2.12 of the Act.
1227Assurance of support debts
1227(1)         If a person is liable to pay an assurance of support debt, the debt is a debt due to the Commonwealth.
1236   Secretary may write off debt
1236(1)Subject to subsection (1A), the Secretary may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, decide to write off a debt, for a stated period or otherwise.
1236(1A)The Secretary may decide to write off a debt under subsection (1) if, and only if:
(a)       the debt is irrecoverable at law; or
(b)       the debtor has no capacity to repay the debt; or
(c)the debtor's whereabouts are unknown after all reasonable effort have been made to locate the debtor; or
(d)the debtor is not receiving a social security payment under this Act and is not cost effective for the Commonwealth to take action to recover the debt.
1237Power to waive Commonwealth's right to recover debt
Secretary's limited power to waive
1237(1)On behalf of the Commonwealth, the Secretary may waive the Commonwealth's right to recover the whole or a part of a debt from a debtor only in the circumstances described in section 1237A, 1237AA, 1237AAA, 1237AAB, 1237AAC or 1237AAD.
1237A   Waiver of debt arising from error
Administrative error
1237A(1)Subject to subsection (1A), the Secretary must waive the right to recover the proportion of a debt that is attributable solely to an administrative error made by the Commonwealth if the debtor received in good faith the payment or payments that gave rise to that proportion of the debit
Note:Subsection (1) does not allow waiver of a part of a debt that was caused partly by administrative error and partly by one or more other factors (such as error by the debtor).
1237AADWaiver in special circumstances
The Secretary must waive the right to recover all or part of a debt if the Secretary is satisfied that:
(a)the debt did not result wholly or partly from the debtor or another person knowingly:
(i)making a false statement or false representation; or
(ii)failing or omitting to comply with a provision of this Act or the 1947 Act; and
(b)there are special circumstances (other than financial hardship alone) that make it desirable to waive; and
(c)it is more appropriate to waive than write off the debt or part of the debt.
Note:Section 1236 allows the Secretary to write off a debt on behalf the Commonwealth

whether the applicant owed a debt to the commonwealth

There is no issue that the Applicant signed an assurance of support document. The assuree, Hala Halaby, received social security payments during the period of the assurance of support, and therefore an assurance of support debt exists under the Act. The only issue was whether the debt should be recovered.
submissions
Should the debt be recovered?
The Applicant sought to have the debt waived under s1237AAD of the Act. It was submitted for the Applicant that the debt did not arise as a result of anyone knowingly making a false statement or failing to comply with the provisions of the Act. The only relevant document was the application for Newstart Allowance made by Hala Halaby (exhibit 2). It was submitted for the Applicant that the answer to question 15 of that document was ambiguous; it was unclear how that answer was changed or when, or which box was ticked first. It was also unclear as to the meaning of the ticks and crosses on the document as part of the document bore crosses and other the parts bore ticks to indicate the correct answer. The Applicant also submitted that in her evidence Hala Halaby did not adopt the changed answer to the question about the assurance of support because she had not initialled the change to the answer.
The Applicant submitted that, relying on s1237AAD, the 'special circumstances' in this case was the administrative error on the part of Centrelink not providing reliable assistance to Mrs Halaby to complete the form. There was no provision of an interpreter, particularly given the geographical area of Centrelink's office had a large Arabic population and Centrelink often used Arabic interpreters to assist claimants attending those offices and there were probably Arabic people working in the office. The Applicant also submitted that there was an administrative error in the indication by the officer of the granting of Newstart Allowance to Hala Halaby when in fact she was not qualified for that benefit. It was submitted for the Applicant that the Act provided that the Respondent ensure, and not pay the benefit, unless it was satisfied that the assurer - the Applicant in this case - was willing and able to provide support and it was reasonable for the assuree, Hala Halaby, to accept that support. This was not tested by Centrelink. Had it been tested it would have found that there were other means of support of Hala Halaby and that it was probably unreasonable for her not to accept that support.
The Applicant did not contend he had no capacity to repay the debt but submitted that waiver was appropriate in the particular circumstances, to adjust the inequitable consequence of the administrative error that caused the debt.
It was submitted for the Respondent that there were no special circumstances in the Applicant's case that would justify the waiver of the debt under s1237AAD of the Act. In signing the assurance of support document the Applicant was fully aware of his obligations in respect of his liability to the Commonwealth in supporting Hala Halaby for the next two years.
The Respondent submitted that Mrs Halaby had stated on her claim form that she did not need an interpreter (exhibit 2, at question 12). The Respondent also submitted that bearing in mind Adnan Halaby, who was attending the interview with Hala Halaby, had a good grasp of English and did not have significant language problems, it was a matter of discretion for the interviewing officer to accept the claim form as being true and correct and there was no administrative error.
The Respondent submitted that Centrelink cannot deny people the opportunity to lodge claims for certain payments. Hala Halaby lodged a claim and the Respondent based its decision on the information that was provided at the time.
The Respondent submitted that in reference to question 15 of the claim form, there was a false statement made and the Respondent relied on that answer in order to make payments to Hala Halaby. The Respondent also submitted that there was uncertainty about who ticked the answer "yes" or "no". The interviewing officer did not do it and therefore the only conclusion is that it could have been changed by Hala Halaby or Adnan Halaby who were present at the interview.
The Respondent submitted that, relying on the answer being "no", Centrelink was not in a position to follow its guidelines concerning assurance of support debts. If Centrelink had been made aware of the assurance of support, then it would have advised the Applicant of Hala Halaby being in receipt of a payment.

The Respondent submitted that there was no legislative requirement for it to advise the Applicant of the social security payments to Mrs Halaby: Re Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and El Hawli (now known as Hassan) (1998) 53 ALD 243 3 and Re Haykal and Secretary, Department of Social Security (1996) 41 ALD 189. In relation to the Department's delay in advising the Applicant of an assurance of support debt, the Respondent submitted that the Applicant is not disadvantaged by the delay: Re Lamvohee and Secretary, Department of Social Security (AAT 12166, 28 August 1997).
It was submitted for the Respondent that it was clear from the evidence the Applicant was not in any type of financial hardship; he owns property and runs his own business. The Respondent also submitted that the Applicant was willing to repay the full debt in December 1998 and therefore it can be inferred that he was then aware of his liability to the Commonwealth.
The Respondent submitted, given the circumstances of this case, it was very difficult to say there was administrative error. Given there was some confusion, Centrelink had relied on the information provided to it. There must be a combination of circumstances that would amount to special circumstances, and if it is argued that there is administrative error, then that is a minor factor that is to be considered along with other considerations. In order for special circumstances to be found in this case, such circumstances must be unusual or unreasonable.
considerations of evidence and findings of fact
The Tribunal finds that in signing the assurance of support documentation the Applicant was put on notice of his liability to the Commonwealth pursuant to s1227(1) of the Act. On the evidence he was in no doubt about his liability.
The Tribunal notes that the Applicant was not seeking to have the debt written off. In any event, the circumstances of this case do not fall within the provisions of s1236(1A) and therefore write off is not available.
Section 1237(1) provides the Secretary with limited power to waive the Commonwealth's right to recover the whole or part of a debt in circumstances described in various subsections of s1237, including s1237AAD. Furthermore, s1237A(1) provides that the Secretary must waive the right to recover the proportion of a debt that is attributable solely to an administrative error made by the Commonwealth if the debtor received, in good faith, the payments that gave rise to the debt. It was submitted for the Applicant that although administrative error occurred, as the debtor was not the person who received the payment, the Applicant was not relying on this subsection. The Respondent submitted that no administrative error occurred.
The Tribunal notes the submission for the Applicant, and agrees that as the debtor is not the person who received the payments, it cannot be held that he received the payments in good faith. Indeed, it was Hala Halaby and not the Applicant who received the payments. In effect, therefore, waiver on the basis of solely administrative error is not open to the Applicant: s1237A(1).
In respect of whether the debt should be waived in part or in whole because of the existence of special circumstances (s1237AAD of the Act) the Tribunal must consider first whether in effect Hala or Adnan Halaby knowingly made a false statement on the claim form, because if they did then the Applicant does not have a right to have the debt waived: Hassan v Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services (1999) 95 FCR 26. The Respondent's submissions do not deal with the issue of whether question 15 was completed as it was by Hala or Adnan Halaby so as to knowingly make a false statement, and the Tribunal is unable to be reasonably satisfied on the evidence that the false statement was made knowingly.
The Tribunal is also unable to be reasonably satisfied that the interviewing officer did not change the answer to the question during the course of the interview. Understandably, he cannot remember. The Tribunal notes that if he did change the response, after discussion with Hala or Adnan Halaby during the interview, and if he followed his normal practice, he would then have asked about the assurance of support in existence and what the Applicant's circumstances were. However, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied to the requisite standard that such a discussion did not occur as a prelude to changing the response to question 15. On the evidence the Tribunal must leave open the issue of who altered the form.
Given the trigger that caused Hala Halaby to lodge the claim in the first instance, one could understand that there could be some confusion in the minds of Hala and Adnan Halaby about the continued life of the assurance of support for two years when the Senate was reported to have dealt recently with some change to non-entitlement to social security for people arriving in Australia. It is probable, however, that their uncertainty about this was, for some reason, not communicated to Mr Jagota during the Centrelink interview in a way that enabled him to understand that an assurance of support may still be operative. That is no reflection on Mr Jagota. It is to suggest, however, that it is quite feasible, and indeed probable, that the reason for the change in the form, by whoever did it, was not sinister, but neither was it consistent with procedure. The change was not initialled and nobody picked that up in processing it subsequently.
The Tribunal certainly does not accept the Applicant's submission that an interpreter should have been provided.
The Tribunal finds that the evidence shrouds the issue in confusion. Adnan Halaby said he attempted to complete this question and then decided to leave it in order to get assistance from the Centrelink officer. In his oral evidence Adnan Halaby could not recall the precise discussion regarding question 15, and Mr Jagota had no clear recollection of the details of the interview. It leaves open the possibility that as a result of the discussion the officer was given to understand that there was no assurance of support. As Adnan and Hala Halaby were well aware of the existence of the assurance of support it is difficult to know why that question should have posed any problem for them. However, given that English is not their first language and Hala Halaby has little or no understanding of English, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the question was not clear to them, particularly in the light of the legislative change, about which they had become aware, that they could have confused with the assurance of support.
A significant issue for the Tribunal is that on 28 August 1998 the Assurance Support Section of Centrelink notified the Debt Recovery Unit that an assurance of support debt may exist in respect of the Applicant (T10). There is no evidence to assist the Tribunal to know how that question was raised at that stage, and importantly, if there was some knowledge about the assurance of support at that stage, why it was not available and actioned earlier and in particular during the payment period. The Tribunal accepts the evidence that if the relevant parties were aware that a debt was being incurred by the payments, the payments would not have been sought, or continued. When one adds the failure to have the change to question 15 initialled, the subsequent failure to note that it had not been initialled, and the Respondent's ability to investigate apparently of its own motion and identify the existence of an assurance of support, then it is clear that the Respondent could have taken action at an earlier stage so as to prevent or limit the amount of the debt.
In considering whether there are special circumstances that make it desirable to waive the debt, in whole or in part, the Tribunal has taken into account that the claim was made after Hala and Adnan Halaby became aware through a media report of changes to the two year non-entitlement period for social security. She lodged the claim because they thought she might now be entitled. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant was not informed by Centrelink of Hala Halaby's application because there was no evidence available to them that there was an assurance of support in existence. Whatever the content of the information shared in the interview, the Tribunal is not reasonably satisfied that it was made clear to the Centrelink officer that there was an assurance of support in existence.
The Tribunal is also reasonably satisfied that, because of the media information that had triggered her claim, Hala Halaby had no intention of claiming a benefit that would then have to be repaid by the Applicant as a result of the assurance of support in existence. If she had known that, she would not have pursued the claim. For that reason the Applicant was not advised by Adnan or Hala Halaby that Hala Halaby was receiving the payment. This is despite the fact that she knew of the existence of the assurance of support and of the liability of the Applicant to repay money to the Commonwealth.
In essence, the Tribunal finds that the debt has arisen as a result of a genuine misunderstanding occasioned by Adnan and Hala Halaby's lack of relevant information in the light of the media report. While it could have been corrected by the Centrelink officer had he understood the facts of the assurance of support, the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that that information was not deliberately withheld by Adnan or Hala Halaby.
Another important factor that the Tribunal must consider, however, is the Applicant's ability to repay the debt. There is no issue about this. The only reason he has pursued this claim, rather than repaying the debt already, is one of a "matter of principle". The Tribunal has no reason to doubt the Applicant's evidence that if Hala Halaby had needed financial assistance at the time she applied for Newstart Allowance he would have provided it. The fact is, however, on Adnan Halaby's evidence, she did not apply for the payment because she needed it, but because they thought she was entitled to it, and she was never disavowed of that assumption.
The Tribunal must weigh up the fact that, on the one hand, this is a debt of $5,422.47, owing by the Applicant to the Commonwealth. On the other hand, the Applicant had no knowledge that the debt was being incurred and had he have known at any stage during the payment period there is no doubt it would not have continued. The Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that the payments were received by Hala Halaby in good faith, and that while the Tribunal does not find that administrative error occurred, this is a case where the claim would not have proceeded if the Centrelink officer had clarified the position at the time of the interview. The Tribunal is mindful, too, that it is not open to it to order Hala Halaby to repay the debt, even though she benefited from the payment. The debt is with the Applicant, as the assurer of support.
The overwhelming concern that the Tribunal has in waiving the debt in full is the Applicant's ability to pay. On the other hand, the Applicant is in his current position of having a debt to the Commonwealth without having had the opportunity to do anything about it and, on the finding of the Tribunal, without his assuree having any clear and deliberate intention to seek payment of Newstart Allowance knowing that it would become a liability on the Applicant. In these circumstances the Tribunal has decided to use its discretion to waive half of the debt. Therefore, the Tribunal will set aside the decision of the SSAT and the primary decision of the Respondent in respect of waiver, and in substitution decide that part of the debt is waived in the amount of $2,711.27. The Tribunal directs that the Respondent shall negotiate with the Applicant for repayment of the amount of $2,711.20, being the remainder of the debt owing.
I certify that the 48 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mrs M T Lewis, Senior Member
Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Associate
Date/s of Hearing  6 September 2000
Date of Decision  13 June 2001
Solicitor for the Applicant         Ms S Clark, Welfare Rights Centre
Advocate for the Respondent Mr G Lozynsky, Dept of Family & Community
  Services

[2001] AATA 520

13 June 2001

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Social Security Law

Legal Concepts

Assurance of Support

Waiver of Debt

Special Circumstances

Financial Capacity

Administrative Appeals