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

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Cheng, acting on behalf of Ms Lloyd, against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to cancel Ms Lloyd's age pension and raise a debt for overpayments. The central dispute revolved around whether the proceeds from the sale of Ms Lloyd's principal home should be exempted from the assets test for an extended period beyond the initial 12 months, and consequently, whether the cancellation of the age pension and the resulting debt were correctly determined. The case was heard by Mr S Evans, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the exemption period for the proceeds of the sale of a principal home could be extended beyond 12 months, and if so, whether Ms Lloyd had made reasonable attempts to purchase a new residence within a reasonable period to qualify for such an extension. The Tribunal was also required to determine if the cancellation of the age pension was correct and whether any debt owed to the Commonwealth should be waived or written off, considering the circumstances.

The Tribunal considered the provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 and the departmental policy contained within the Social Security Guide. While the Act allows for an extension of the exemption period for up to 24 months under subsection 1118(2B) if reasonable attempts are made to purchase another residence, the terms "reasonable period" and "reasonable attempts" are not defined in the Act. The Tribunal noted that departmental policy, as outlined in the Guide, provides parameters for these terms, requiring documentary evidence of actions such as entering into a contract of sale or engaging a builder. Ms Cheng argued that Ms Lloyd had made reasonable attempts to find a suitable property in Chatswood, but had been unsuccessful due to affordability and suitability issues, including concerns about properties being at risk of collective sale to developers.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that while the overpayment of age pension between 1 November 2018 and 31 October 2019 was to be waived due to sole administrative error, Ms Lloyd's age pension was correctly cancelled from 1 November 2019. The Tribunal was not satisfied that Ms Lloyd's circumstances warranted waiving the remaining debt of $10,503.16, given her access to substantial liquid funds and the receipt of an age pension to which she was not entitled. The decision under review was set aside and substituted accordingly.