Harris and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
[2011] AATA 155
•9 March 2011
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 155
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2009/6009
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re JESSICA HARRIS Applicant
And
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms N Bell, Senior Member Date9 March 2011
PlaceSydney
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
.................[sgd].............................
Ms N Bell, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS – Social Security - Youth Allowance - Lodgement of claim - record of activity - “deny access” facility
REASONS FOR DECISION
Ms N Bell, Senior Member 1. Miss Jessica Harris, who turned 16 on 14 December 2006, was granted Youth Allowance from 11 December 2008. Her mother, Mrs Marella Harris, sought a review of the decision to grant payment from this date because she contended an earlier claim for Youth Allowance had been made in November 2006 at the Liverpool office of Centrelink. Centrelink says it has no record of an earlier claim.
2. The sole issue for me to consider is whether Miss Harris made a claim for Youth Allowance in 2006. The evidence relevant to this question and the events that give rise to it is set out below.
the contended 2006 claim and the visit to centrelink liverpool
3. Miss Harris’ evidence was that sometime in 2006 she had received a Youth Allowance claim form in the post and gave it to her mother to complete. She said that around this time they went together to Liverpool Centrelink office to lodge the form but she did not pay attention and cannot remember what happened there. She has no memory of signing a claim form in 2006. She thinks she did not have a tax file number in 2006, but recalls that she had one when she enrolled in University in 2009.
4. Mrs Harris said that in 2006 she received notification from Centrelink that she had the option of continuing to receive family tax benefit for her daughter or for her daughter to claim Youth Allowance. Mrs Harris said she logged on to her Centrelink record and completed an application form for Youth Allowance online, then printed it out and took it to the Liverpool Centrelink office on 16 November 2006 for lodgement. She recalled the office was very busy that day and that she handed the form to an officer behind the counter. Mrs Harris explained that she has a “deny access” notification on her Centrelink file and said the officer who received her form did not have authority to access her file. Mrs Harris said the officer stapled the form and the letter stating Mrs Harris’ income together, stamped the form with a Centrelink stamp and placed them both on the counter behind her. Mrs Harris said she also presented her daughter’s birth certificate and her Medicare card which included her daughter’s name. Mrs Harris said the officer told her she would have to contact Miss Harris’ father in order to obtain his income details and then she would get back to her.
5. Mrs Harris said that both she and Miss Harris had signed the form and she had read the information booklet about Youth Allowance. She said family tax benefit for her daughter had been cancelled in the weeks leading up to her 16th birthday and Mrs Harris’ payment decreased. She agreed she had been sent a “Review of Family Tax Benefit” form a few weeks earlier. She said she did not hear anything further from the officer or from anyone in Centrelink concerning the Youth Allowance claim.
6. When asked, Mrs Harris said she was definitely not confusing her “Review of Family Tax Benefit” form with a claim for Youth Allowance.
7.
Evidence was given by Mr Greg Tighe, Centrelink customer service officer specialising in family assistance. After analysing a computer record of all occasions on which Miss Harris’ file and Mrs Harris’ file were accessed during the period
1 to 30 November 2006, Mr Tighe said Miss Harris’ file was not accessed at all and
Mrs Harris’ file was accessed in a way that is consistent with the processing of a review for a child turning 16. That included updating child information for eligibility for Family Tax Benefit and noting an intention to claim Youth Allowance. Mr Tighe also noted that there was no record of Mrs Harris having accessed her file and no record of any processing online by her.
8. Mr Tighe explained that when processing a claim for Youth Allowance a child’s record would be made into an adult record and the child’s mother’s record would not be used. Miss Harris’ record was not accessed.
9. Mr David Jacquin, Team Leader at the Liverpool Centrelink office, gave evidence of the usual course taken when a customer with a “deny access” facility lodges a form. He said all Liverpool staff are trained in dealing with these records and know to take special care because customers have sought special protection. He said that if the officer at reception does not have authorisation to access the customer’s record, the customer will be asked to wait or to return when an authorised person can be located. He said it is not the practice for an officer to simply accept the claim and tell the customer that Centrelink will be in touch with them. He said the “deny access” facility would pose a problem only so far as it would require an authorised officer to be located and made available, but in all other respects it would mean that special care was taken with the customer’s record.
10. In any event, he said, a Youth Allowance claim form is lengthy and requires an interview with a Centrelink officer to ensure all matters are covered in the claim.
11. Mr Jacquin also said that a person must have a tax file number to claim Youth Allowance. He said that if a customer has no tax file number then Centrelink issues a tax file number application form and will accept the completed form on the Taxation Office’s behalf.
the two years between the contended 2006 claim and the december 2008 claim
12. Miss Harris said that, after having heard nothing further about Youth Allowance and hearing her friends talk about their payments, she simply assumed her claim had been unsuccessful or that the payments were going into her mother’s bank account. She said an amount of arrears of child support had been paid into her account by her mother prior to her 16th birthday and she drew on that for various expenses until it was exhausted in 2007. She said she would ask her mother for money for movies and food occasionally and her mother never mentioned her Youth Allowance. She agreed that by about mid 2007 it must have been apparent to her that she was not receiving payments of Youth Allowance into her account. She said she never spoke to her mother about it.
13. Mrs Harris said she realised that Miss Harris was not receiving Youth Allowance about midway through 2008 when she looked at one of her daughter’s bank statements. She said she usually did not look at the statements because they were addressed to Miss Harris. She said she had been occupied with her other children and with her ailing father who passed away in April 2007 and so did not give Youth Allowance a thought in that year.
14. Mrs Harris said that the Youth Allowance payments she thought Miss Harris was getting were intended to be used for her University fees.
the claim in 2008
15. Miss Harris said she claimed Youth Allowance in 2008 because she realised it was not in fact being paid to her mother. She said she cannot remember requesting a claim form to be sent to her in 2008 but does remember obtaining one from Centrelink in September 2008, asking her mother for help in completing it and her mother not having enough time. She eventually attended Centrelink on her own to lodge the claim form.
16. Mrs Harris said that in mid 2008, her daughter opened one of her bank statements and saw that no money was being paid in. Mrs Harris said she checked all of her children’s accounts to be sure that Youth Allowance was not being paid into another child’s account by mistake. She said she went to the Family Assistance Office in Fairfield in July or August 2008 to ask about it and said the officer there told her that she could make a claim for Youth Allowance then and also claim back payments of family allowance for her daughter. Mrs Harris said she considered she should not have to do that.
17.
Mrs Harris said that two weeks later she went to the Centrelink Liverpool office where she was given a Youth Allowance claim form and an adult file was opened for her daughter. She said she gave the form to her daughter but she thinks Miss Harris did not make the claim until December 2008. Mrs Harris said she
(Mrs Harris) was overseas for four weeks in September and October 2008.
Mrs Harris said she is not sure when her daughter eventually lodged her Youth Allowance claim form with Centrelink but recalls her daughter received a letter from Centrelink asking her to attend an interview at the Centrelink office on a Saturday afternoon in December.
18. Mrs Harris also said that early in 2009 she found out that Miss Harris’ father and his wife had become the contact people on her Centrelink file. Mrs Harris said she asked her daughter to speak to her father about it and arranged to have herself recorded as her daughter’s nominee. She said she now receives duplicates of all correspondence to Miss Harris. She does not, however, allege any interference with her Centrelink file.
19. Mrs Harris said she has been in receipt of Centrelink payments, on and off, since 1997, has had a lot of dealings with Centrelink and agreed she is familiar with Centrelink. However, she pointed out she had never before claimed Youth Allowance.
20. Mrs Harris also said that her former husband was a Centrelink employee and that is why she had a “deny access” status on her file. She said that having this status made it harder to have questions answered and that it took longer to have action taken on her file.
21. Mrs Harris said she did not follow up on her daughter’s Youth Allowance because it was her daughter’s claim rather than her own. She said she has had previous problems with Centrelink and considers it likely that Centrelink made a mistake by failing to process her daughter’s claim for Youth Allowance in 2006.
22. I cannot be reasonably satisfied of this. Everything, except Mrs Harris’ recollection, points to no claim for Youth Allowance having been made in 2006. The documentary and computer records show all of the normal indications of a claim for Youth Allowance in 2008, but none for any claim in 2006. There is, however, record of activity around a family tax benefit review in November 2006.
23. I note there is also no record of online access by Mrs Harris for any purpose in the relevant period. This does not accord with her memory of events. Rather, the records indicate a “Review of Family Tax Benefit” form was lodged in person. I also note Mr Jacquin’s evidence that claims for Youth Allowance are made in an interview, given the length and complexity of the claim form. That was the course taken when Miss Harris made her claim in 2008.
24. There is also the period of two years during which no step was taken by either Mrs or Miss Harris to check whether the claim had been accepted. This is surprising given the payments were intended to be set aside for the important purpose of meeting University fees. Miss Harris’ evidence was that the funds in her bank account were depleted by 2007 and neither Mrs nor Miss Harris recalls any correspondence from Centrelink to confirm a grant of Youth Allowance. On their evidence they did not speak of it to each other until mid 2008.
25. While I accept that mistakes can be made by Centrelink staff, there is no evidence, apart from Mrs Harris’ recollection, that a claim for Youth Allowance was made in December 2006. I cannot be satisfied that a claim was made. The passage of almost two years with no step taken by either Mrs or Miss Harris to act on the contended mistake makes me even less inclined to rely on Mrs Harris’ recollection. Mrs Harris’ recollection appears to be genuine. However, all other evidence suggests that her recollection is incorrect.
decision
26. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the 26 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms N Bell, Senior Member
Signed: .................[sgd].............................................................
AssociateDates of Hearing 12 November 2010 & 21 February 2011
Date of Decision 9 March 2011
Representative for the Applicant Mrs Marella HarrisSolicitor for the Respondent Mr James Larcombe & Ms Phyllis Lee, Centrelink Legal Services
0
0
0