Holt and Repatriation Commission

[2006] AATA 537

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 537

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No  V2005/1081

VETERANS’     APPEALS         DIVISION		)
Re		JANE WINIFRED HOLT

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr John Handley, Senior Member

Date22 June 2006

PlaceMelbourne

Decision IT IS DECIDED the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review a decision made on 11 November 2005 to raise an overpayment of service pension.

..............................................

Senior Member

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS – service pension – rate payable – failure to notify of changed circumstances – overpayment – automatic rate reduction – whether a reviewable decision

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) s 56B and s 56H and s 56D

REASONS FOR DECISION

22 June 2006   Mr John Handley, Senior Member

1.      Mrs Holt applied to review a decision made by a delegate of the Respondent on 11 November 2005 who affirmed a decision made raising an overpayment of service pension for the period 25 April 2001 to 19 January 2004.  The Respondent later reduced the rate of service pension payable.  Mrs Holt clarified at the hearing that she sought to review:

(i)the decision with respect to the overpayment; and

(ii)the decision with respect to the reduction in the rate of service pension. 

2.      The evidence of Mrs Holt was taken by telephone from her home in Geelong.  She was unrepresented.  Mr Douglass appeared on behalf of the Respondent.  It was his submission that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review the decisions made.

3.      The circumstances giving rise to this application may be briefly summarised as follows.

4.      Mr and Mrs Holt received service pension for many years.  Mr Holt died on 2 March 2005 and from that date, service pension has been paid to Mrs Holt only.  They both previously received an age pension from the United Kingdom.  The receipt of those pensions was disclosed to the Respondent and taken into account when calculating the rate of service pension.

5.      In April 2001, Mr Holt became entitled to an additional payment from the Department for Social Security in the United Kingdom by reason of him having been found to have a 35 per cent disability for the condition known as Pneumoconiosis.  That finding gave him an entitlement to a pension known as an Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (“the benefit”).  It is the receipt of that benefit that has given rise to the decisions made by the Respondent for which Mrs Holt seeks review.

6.      The first notification of entitlement to that benefit occurred in a letter to Mr Holt on 24 May 2001 from the Department for Social Security.  That letter recorded that a benefit of £45.16 will be paid from 25 April 2001 “for life”.  The letter records that the benefit will be paid “into your bank account every four weeks in arrears”. 

7.      Mrs Holt said she notified the Respondent’s staff in the Geelong office of that benefit.  The Respondent understood that that benefit was payable “fortnightly” and wrote to Mr…