Malone and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 4202
•8 November 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Malone and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2018] AATA 4202
[2018] AATA 4202
8 November 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application by Ms Malone for a review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed a decision of an Authorised Review Officer (ARO). The ARO had determined that Ms Malone was entitled to rent assistance from 10 February 2017, varying Centrelink's original decision that rent assistance was payable from 4 April 2017. Ms Malone had lodged claims for Newstart Allowance and Austudy Student payment, and had notified Centrelink of paying rent on multiple occasions between September 2016 and April 2017.
The Tribunal was required to determine when Ms Malone may have been eligible to claim rent assistance, whether Centrelink was obliged to inform her of her potential entitlement, whether Centrelink was responsible for calculating her rent assistance, what information Centrelink was required to provide regarding her rent assistance entitlements, and whether arrears were payable based on the information she provided. Ms Malone contended that she had informed Centrelink of her rent payments and relied on them to determine her full entitlements, and that she was unaware of her eligibility for rent assistance until Centrelink reviewed her payments in April 2017.
The Tribunal accepted Ms Malone's evidence that she was paying rent from 1 July 2016 and was eligible for rent assistance for much of that period. However, the Tribunal found that Centrelink is not required to advise claimants about their legal rights to specific social security payments or their rates. Rent assistance is considered a component of a social security payment rather than a separate benefit.
The Tribunal affirmed the ARO's decision that rent assistance was payable from 10 February 2017, based on the timing of Ms Malone's notification of rent payments relative to Centrelink's advice.
The Tribunal was required to determine when Ms Malone may have been eligible to claim rent assistance, whether Centrelink was obliged to inform her of her potential entitlement, whether Centrelink was responsible for calculating her rent assistance, what information Centrelink was required to provide regarding her rent assistance entitlements, and whether arrears were payable based on the information she provided. Ms Malone contended that she had informed Centrelink of her rent payments and relied on them to determine her full entitlements, and that she was unaware of her eligibility for rent assistance until Centrelink reviewed her payments in April 2017.
The Tribunal accepted Ms Malone's evidence that she was paying rent from 1 July 2016 and was eligible for rent assistance for much of that period. However, the Tribunal found that Centrelink is not required to advise claimants about their legal rights to specific social security payments or their rates. Rent assistance is considered a component of a social security payment rather than a separate benefit.
The Tribunal affirmed the ARO's decision that rent assistance was payable from 10 February 2017, based on the timing of Ms Malone's notification of rent payments relative to Centrelink's advice.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
-
Natural Justice
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Malone and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2018] AATA 4202
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
0
BRIAN MURPHY and SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
[2010] AATA 115
Hurstville City Council v Hutchison 3G Australia Pty Ltd
[2003] NSWCA 179
Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Rogers
[2000] FCA 1447