Nakamura and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
[2023] AATA 4479
•29 August 2023
Nakamura and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2023] AATA 4479 (29 August 2023)
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2022/4843
Re:Akiyoshi Nakamura
APPLICANT
AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member Dr Linda Kirk
Date:29 August 2023
Place:Sydney
The Reviewable Decision is affirmed.
.................................[SGD].......................................
Senior Member Dr Linda Kirk
CATCHWORDS
FAMILY ASSISTANCE – family tax benefits – rent assistance – whether the decision to case payment of rent assistance was correct – whether the Applicant had been notified that rent assistance had ceased – whether there were special circumstances preventing the Applicant from making an application for review within 52 weeks of being notified of the original decision – decision under review affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth)
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
CASES
Beadle and Director-General of Social Security [1984] AATA 176
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Groth v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1995] FCA 1708
Hooker and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 732
Secretary, Department of Social Services and Hollis [2015] AATA 941
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Guides to Social Policy Law, Family Assistance Guide, Version 1.247 - released 14 August 2023
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member Dr Linda Kirk
29 August 2023
This is an application for review by Mr Akiyoshi Nakamura (‘the Applicant’) of a decision made by the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘AAT1’) on 10 May 2023 (‘the Reviewable Decision’).[1]
[1]Section 37 T-Documents, T2, 5-9.
The Reviewable Decision affirmed the decision dated 25 January 2022 made by an Authorised Review Officer (‘ARO’), that the Applicant could not be paid Family Tax Benefit (‘FTB’) rent assistance arrears from a date earlier than 1 July 2019.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Prior to 7 March 2016, the Applicant was paid FTB by instalment,[2] including a component for FTB rent assistance in relation to the property he rented at Anzac Parade, Kensington NSW.[3]
[2]Ibid, T17, 144-147.
[3]Ibid, T20, 218-220; 228-230.
On 7 March 2016, the Applicant advised Services Australia (‘the Agency’) using the MyGov ‘Update Your Details’ online service that from 7 March 2016, his new address was the property he rented at Galara Street, Rosebery NSW (the ‘Rosebery property’).[4]
[4]Ibid, T6, 119.
On the same date, the Agency sent the Applicant a rent certificate (‘the Rent Certificate’) which was to be returned by 28 March 2016. The Rent Certificate noted that rent assistance would cease to be paid to the Applicant unless the requested information was provided by him to the Agency by the return date.[5]
[5]Ibid, T20, 243-245.
On 5 April 2016, the Agency sent the Applicant a notice (‘the Cancellation Notice’) advising that a decision had been made to cancel his rent assistance from 5 April 2016 as he had not provided the requested information regarding his eligibility for rent assistance (‘the Cancellation Decision’).[6] The Cancellation Notice set out the Applicant’s new rate of FTB which did not include a component for FTB rent assistance. It also stated:
[6]Ibid, T4, 47-49.
What you need to do to get Rent Assistance
If you are still paying rent, you need to complete and return the review form sent to you as soon as possible. We cannot pay you Rent Assistance again until we confirm you are still eligible to receive it. If you have lost the form, cannot get a copy of the lease agreement or are having trouble getting your landlord to sign the form, let us know immediately so we can help.
…
If you do not agree with a decision we have made
·Contact us so we can check the details and explain the decision.
·Contact us and ask for a review of the decision. We will change it if it is wrong.
·Contact the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) if you do not agree with the review officer’s decision.
·If you do not agree with the decision of the AAT you may be able to appeal further. For more information about the AAT please go to aat.gov.au.
All of the above are free of charge.
If you do not agree with the decision we have made, contact us as soon as possible. It is important to ask for review within 52 weeks of being notified about the decision. If your request for review is more than 52 weeks after being notified and the decision can be changed, you may only receive your entitlement from the date you requested review.
There is no time limit for a review of a decision about money you owe us. However you may have to pay back the money while the decision is being reviewed.
On 10 May 2019, the Agency raised a FTB debt of $1,580.25 in respect of the 2015/16 financial year.[7]
[7]Ibid, T5, 50-53.
On 14 August 2020, the Applicant advised the Agency that his new address from 26 September 2019 was the property he rented at Culloden Road, Marsfield NSW (‘the Marsfield property’).[8]
[8]Ibid, T16, 122.
On 19 August 2020, the Applicant received $4,168.92 in arrears of FTB rent assistance for the period from 26 September 2019 to 7 August 2020 in respect of the Marsfield property.
On 25 August 2020, the Applicant received his FTB payment in respect of the fortnight from 8 August 2020 to 21 August 2020 which included a component for FTB rent assistance for the Marsfield property.
On 4 January 2021, the Applicant provided a letter to the Agency dated 27 December 2020 in which he queried why his rent assistance had been suspended from 2015 to 2019.[9]
[9]Ibid, T6, 54-55.
On 9 February 2021 and 23 August 2021, the Applicant provided further letters to the Agency regarding this issue.[10]
[10]Ibid, T6, 56-58.
On 13 September 2021, the Applicant provided the Agency with a lease agreement for the Rosebery property for the period from 24 October 2015 to 21 October 2016.[11]
[11]Ibid, T9, 62-78.
On 20 September 2021 and 27 October 2021, the Applicant provided further letters to the Agency regarding the back payment of rent assistance.[12]
[12]Ibid, T10, 79-81; T11, 82-86.
On 12 November 2021, the Applicant requested review of the decision to not be paid arrears of rent assistance in respect the Rosebery property.[13]
[13]Ibid, T16, 132-133.
On 16 December 2021, the Applicant provided rent receipts for the Rosebery property for the period from 27 August 2016 to 20 September 2019.[14]
[14]Ibid, T13, 96-107.
In a decision dated 25 January 2022, the ARO found (‘the ARO decision’):
a)the Applicant did not have an FTB debt of $1,580.25 during the period from 30 October 2015 to 6 March 2016 as the Applicant was entitled to rent assistance during this period in respect of the Rosebery property; and
b)the Applicant was entitled to back payment of rent assistance for the period from 1 July 2019 to 25 September 2019 for the Rosebery property.[15]
[15]Ibid, T15, 111-114.
On 10 May 2022, the AAT1 affirmed the ARO decision.[16]
[16]Ibid, T2, 5-9.
On the same day, the Applicant applied to the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) for review of the Reviewable Decision.
The matter was heard by video via the MS Teams on 27 June 2023. The Applicant attended the hearing and was self-represented.
The following material is before the Tribunal:
·Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (‘RSFIC’) dated 30 January 2023;
·Applicant’s statement dated 28 September 2022; and
·Section 37 T-Documents (T1 – T20, pp. 1 – 253) filed 21 June 2023.
LEGISLATION AND POLICY
The relevant legislation is set out in:
·A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth); and
·A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (‘the Administration Act’).
Section 109E of the Administration Act outlines the date of effect of certain decisions in relation to the payment of FTB by instalment. It relevantly states:
(1) If:
(a) a person applies under section 109A for review of a decision (the original decision) relating to the payment to the person of family tax benefit by instalment; and
(b) the application is made more than 52 weeks after the person was given notice of the original decision; and
(c) the Secretary or an authorised review officer decides, under subsection 109A(2), to vary the original decision or to set aside the original decision and substitute a new decision; and
(d) the decision of the Secretary or authorised review officer (the review decision) will have the effect of creating or increasing an entitlement to be paid family tax benefit by instalment;
the date of effect of the review decision is the first day of the period to which the original decision relates.
(2) The Secretary may, if he or she is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the applicant from making an application under section 109A for review of the original decision within 52 weeks, determine that subsection (1) applies as if the reference to 52 weeks were a reference to such longer period as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
(2AA)If:
(a)paragraphs (1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) apply; and
(b) the first day of the period which the original decision relates is earlier than the first day (the cut-off day) of the income year before the income year in which the application referred to in paragraph (1)(b) was made;
then, despite subsection (1), the person cannot be paid any entitlement created or increased as mentioned in paragraph (1)(d) (including as a result of taking into account the FTB Part A supplement or the FTB Part B supplement) in relation to any day earlier than the cut-off day.
(2A) Subsection (2AA) not apply in relation to a decision by the Secretary or by an authorised review officer on an application by a person under section 109A for review of the original decision if:
(a) as a result of the original decision, the person was entitled to be paid family tax benefit by instalment at a particular rate in respect of a period (the same- rate benefit period) that consists of, or is included in, a particular income year (the relevant income year); and
(aa) the original decision is not a decision made under subsection 105(4) (including because of the operation of section 105A) or 109A(2); and
(b) either:
(i)if the same-rate benefit period to which the original decision relates is the only same-rate benefit period for the person for the relevant income year--the person satisfies the FTB reconciliation conditions for the same-rate benefit period; or
(ii)if the same-rate benefit period to which the original decision relates is one of 2 or more same-rate benefit periods for the person for the relevant income year--the person satisfies the FTB reconciliation conditions for each of those same-rate benefit periods.
Note:To work our when the person satisfied the FTB reconciliation conditions, see section 32B.
Section 224 of the Administration Act provides the following in relation to notices of decisions:
(1) Notice of a decision of an officer affecting a person's eligibility for, or entitlement to be paid, family assistance under the family assistance law is taken, for the purposes of the family assistance law, to have been given to the person if the notice is:
(a) delivered to the person personally; or
(b) left at the address of the place of residence of business of the person last known to the Secretary; or”
(c) sent by post to the address of the person last known to the Secretary.
…
(3) A notice referred to in subsection (1) or (2) is taken to have been sent by post if the notice giver properly addresses, prepays and posts the notice as a letter. Unless the contrary is proved, the notice is taken to have been given to the person to whom it is addressed at the time the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.
Government policy set out in the Family Assistance Guide (‘the Guide’)[17] is also relevant and should be applied by decision-makers unless there are cogent reasons not to do so.[18] Instruction 6.2 – Internal reviews of the Guide provides:
[17] Guides to Social Policy Law, Family Assistance Guide, Version 1.247 - released 14 August 2023.
[18]Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 645.
Date of effect of a favourable decision for a review initiated by an affected person
Except for CCS and ACCS decisions, provided the person applies for the review within the prescribed timeframe as described above, and the outcome of the review is in their favour, because Centrelink varies or sets the original decision aside, the decision takes effect from the first day of the period to which the original decision relates. This means arrears are payable from that day, giving the decision full effect.
However, for a review decision relating to FTB by instalment, where the application for review is made more than 52 weeks after notice was given of the original decision, or a further period if Centrelink is satisfied there are special circumstances that prevented the applicant from making an application for review on time, then the date of effect is generally the later of:
· the date from which full arrears are payable;
· 1 July of the income year before the income year in which the application for review is made.
Explanation: For FTB by instalment cases, full arrears are payable as long as the application for review is made before the end of the income year following the income year in which the notice of the original decision was given. Otherwise, arrears can only be paid back to the beginning of the previous income year.
This limitation on the date of effect does not apply where the application for review is the result of:
· the individual meeting the reconciliation conditions and applying for a review of their annual entitlement (i.e. asking for reconciliation to occur)
· an assessment or review of taxable income by the ATO, provided the application for review is made within 13 weeks of when the individual received notification of the ATO decision and the individual had lodged their tax return before the end of the income year after the income year to which the review relates, or
· a review of child support entitlement, provided the person makes the application for review within 13 weeks of receiving notification of the revised child support assessment.
APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE
In his written statement dated 28 September 2022, the Applicant outlined the factual background and his claims in relation to the rent assistance for the Rosebery property that he did not receive during the period of 5 April 2016 to 30 June 2019:
We are raising two issues this time.
One is that the Family Tax Benefit rental assistance debt of $1580.25 is still unpaid, which we thought we had decided to pay at the previous Tribunal.
That has not yet been deposited.
And the main issue is the rent assistance stopped from about Oct. 2015 until Oct. 19.
We had the following history.
We moved Rosebery from Anzac parade in 2015.
We then visited the Bondi Junction office of centerlink (sic) several times to change our address and apply for Rent Assist.
Dylan at centerlink, (sic) who I have spoken with on the phone before, also said that he has that record.
However, Rent Assist has been stopped since 2016.
During that time, I went to the centerlink (sic) office in Bondi Junction to reapply with tenancy agreements and utility bill receipts.
One of those visits was handled by a woman in her 30s or 40s.
We submitted the necessary paperwork and we asked her
'Is that all that is required?' I asked the lady.
She said
"That's all."my wife and I clearly remember the above.
However, Rent-Assist was not provided and we were not aware of it.
We were not aware of this because the details of this benefit are listed as "Family Tax Benefit A and B".
We had assumed that Rent-Assist was included in this benefit, and we were not aware of it.
And just because the lady at Bondi Junction clearly told us that it had been completed.
As mentioned above, we have visited a centerlink (sic) office several times regarding Rent-Assist.
Also during the Sydney lockdown in 2020,
We have also inquired by letter a few times.
However, they centerlink (sic) officers, including Mr. Dylan, have told us that no such record has been kept.
So I could not reapply because the deadline for application had passed.
They then told us that they sent us notice of stopped the rent assist six months after the benefits stopped.
And since we did not respond to that letter, they said we could not accept another claim. We always check our post, but I don't remember receiving the above letter.
Andthey say they never received the first letter we sent in protest either.
However, after I have received a letters from centerlink (sic) that just say “your claim Copied”. Also some lady called me from centerlink (sic) office and said,
"If you take the necessary documents to your local centerlink (sic) and explain your situation, you can apply retroactively. You can apply retroactively." I have received a phone call from them.
However, they said "we have no proof of this. we could not reapply because the deadline had passed."
Mr. Dylan also said he had our history of coming to process the relocation and Even though we have evidence of visits.
He says there is no history of us applying for Rent Assist. Yet we both applied on the same day as above.
I would like to tell you this point,
There is no history of facts against them.
And that there is a record of things that are to their advantage. I feel it is very unfair.
That's why we raise as above.
We swear to you that the above is true.
In his oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant said that he moved to the Rosebery property on 30 October 2015. He agreed that he did not complete or return the Rent Certificate, however he confirmed it was sent to the correct address.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he did not receive the Cancellation Notice, but he agreed it was sent to the correct address being the Rosebery property.
The Applicant said that he went to Centrelink at Bondi Junction with his wife in early 2016 after they had moved to the Rosebery property. They spoke to a female officer about rent assistance and were given some forms. She confirmed that all was fine in relation to the payment of their rent assistance. The Applicant therefore assumed that they did not need to do anything else. He does not have any documents relevant to this interaction because they completed the forms they were given and submitted them.
The Applicant agreed that his address was updated to the Rosebery address via MyGov in March 2016, but he said it may have been his wife who provided the update.
During cross-examination, the Applicant was asked whether he went to Centrelink in Bondi Junction in 2017. He said he was not sure because he went there two or three times. He agreed that at this time, he was not aware that he was not being paid rent assistance.
The Applicant said that he first became aware that rent assistance was not being paid when he and his wife moved to the Marsfield property at the end of September 2019. It was probably two or three months later that he realised they were not receiving rent assistance. He discussed this with his wife, they did some research, and then they went to the local Centrelink in Top Ryde.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he wrote two or three letters to Centrelink about the rent assistance not being paid prior to the letter dated 27 December 2020, but he cannot remember the dates he sent these letters. He does remember sending a letter during the lockdown in Sydney in 2020. He does not have copies of any of these letters.
During cross-examination, the Applicant was asked why he did not seek review of the Cancellation Decision within 52 weeks of the date of the decision. He said he was not aware his rent assistance had been cancelled because he did not receive the Cancellation Notice. He stated that if they had received the Cancellation Notice, they would have gone to their local Centrelink to make some amendments.
The Applicant said he believes it is unfair that his rent assistance was cancelled when he did not receive the Cancellation Notice, and in circumstances where Centrelink claims not to have received the correspondence he sent. In his experience, it is not unusual for letters to be sent to their address for residents who do not live there, and he believes that Australia Post is unreliable.
The Applicant told the Tribunal he was phoned by a Centrelink officer from the Queensland office and told that if they put in a claim, they might be able to get back-payment of rent assistance and this is why he made this review application. He does not have any further written evidence he can provide to the Tribunal.
CONSIDERATION AND REASONS
It is not in dispute the Applicant was eligible to receive FTB rent assistance in respect of the Rosebery property from the date his FTB rent assistance was cancelled (5 April 2016) until the day before he moved to the Marsfield property (25 September 2019).
The issue is from what date the Applicant can receive arrears of FTB rent assistance under the relevant date of effect provision, being section 109E of the Administration Act.
Was the Applicant given notice of the Cancellation Decision?
The Respondent contends that, in accordance with subsection 224(1) of the Administration Act, the Applicant was given notice of the decision to cancel his FTB rent assistance.[19]
[19] RSFIC, [28].
For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant was taken to have received the Cancellation Notice.
The evidence before the Tribunal is that on 5 April 2016, the Cancellation Notice was sent by post to the Applicant’s last known address, being the Rosebery property. The Applicant had advised the Agency on 7 March 2016 that he had moved to the Rosebery property, and that therefore this was the Applicant’s last known address to the Respondent.
In accordance with sub-section 224(3) of the Administration Act, as there is no evidence to the contrary, the Cancellation Notice is taken to have been given to the Applicant at the time it would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post. Whereas the Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s evidence that he did not receive the Cancellation Notice, it is taken to have been delivered by virtue of the operation of this provision. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the Cancellation Notice was given to the Applicant.
When did the Applicant request review of the Cancellation Decision?
The Respondent contends the corroborating evidence indicates that the Applicant first sought review of the decision to cancel his rent assistance on 4 January 2021, when the Agency received a letter from him dated 27 December 2020 in which he stated that he had checked his benefit history and queried why rent assistance had not been paid from 2015.[20] The Respondent contends that, as this request was made in the 2020/2021 income year, pursuant to subsection 109E(2AA), the cut-off day is the first day of the 2019/2020 income year, being 1 July 2019. In accordance with subsection 109E(2AA), the Applicant cannot be paid FTB rent assistance from a date earlier than 1 July 2019.[21]
[20]Section 37 T-Documents, T6, 54-55.
[21] RSFIC, [32].
For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant is not eligible to the payment of FTB rent assistance prior to 1 July 2019.
There is no evidence in the Agency documents provided to the Tribunal to corroborate the Applicant’s evidence that he attended the Centrelink office in Bondi Junction in 2016 or 2017 and informed a female officer of his move to the Rosebery property and provided lease agreements. The documents show that the Applicant advised the Agency that he had moved to the Rosebery property on 7 March 2016 by using the online MyGov ‘Update your Details’ online service.[22] The Agency’s online documents do not record in-person contact with the Applicant in 2016 or 2017 in relation to rent assistance for the Rosebery property.[23] The Agency documents do not include any scanned lease agreements received from the Applicant in 2016 or 2017. The first scanned lease agreement for the Rosebery property in the Agency documents was received on 13 September 2021.[24]
[22]Section 37 T-Documents, T16, 119.
[23]RSFIC, Attachment A.
[24]Section 37 T-Documents, T9, 62-78.
The Applicant’s evidence is that he registered online with Centrelink in 2019 that he had moved to the Marsfield property. It was around this time that he realised that payment to him of rent assistance had ceased, and he reported this to the Agency by phone and by attending a Centrelink office.[25] The Agency documents before the Tribunal do not contain any evidence the Applicant contacted the Agency at any point during 2019.[26] The documents indicate that the Applicant updated his address to the Marsfield property on 14 August 2020 using the ‘Update Address, Accommodation or Contact Details’ online function.[27]
[25]Ibid, T11, 84.
[26]RSFIC, Attachment A.
[27]Section 37 T-Documents, T16, 122.
The Applicant’s evidence is that he sent one or more letters to Centrelink in March or April 2020 about his rent assistance not being paid. However, there is no record within the Agency documents of a letter being received from the Applicant in March or April 2020. The only letter in the Agency documents in which the Applicant queried why he was not being paid rent assistance between 2015 and 2019 is that dated 27 December 2020, which was received by the Agency on 4 January 2021.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the letter dated 27 December 2020 and received by the Agency on 4 January 2021 amounts to a request by him for review of the Cancellation Decision. As this request was made in the 2020/2021 income year, pursuant to sub-section 109E(2AA) of the Administration Act, the cut-off day is the first day of the 2019/2020 income year, being 1 July 2019. Therefore, in accordance with subsection 109E(2AA), the Tribunal finds that the Applicant cannot be paid FTB rent assistance from a date earlier than 1 July 2019.
Were there special circumstances that prevented the Applicant from seeking a review of the Cancellation Decision?
Section 109E(2) of the Administration Act provides that if the Respondent is satisfied there are special circumstances that prevented a person from making an application under section 109A(1) for review of the original decision within 52 weeks. The Respondent contends that there are no such special circumstances relevant to the Applicant that prevented him from making an application for review of the Cancellation Decision within 52 weeks of 5 April 2016.[28]
[28] RSFIC, [47].
A similar provision relating to special circumstances is contained in subparagraph 10(2)(b)(ii) of the Administration Act, which was considered by the Tribunal in Hooker and Secretary, Department of Social Services (‘Hooker’).[29] Senior Member Toohey set out a two-part test for applying the special circumstances provisions:
In order for the time for making a claim to be extended, the Secretary (and so the Tribunal) must be satisfied, firstly, that circumstances existed that were special and, secondly, that those special circumstances prevented the claimant from making his or her claim within time
…
… In the case of a late claim for FTB, the special circumstances must prevent a person from making a claim on time. That is a more stringent, two-part test.[30]
[29] [2015] AATA 732. Sub-paragraph 10(2)(b)(ii) is expressed in the same language as subsection 109E(2) of the Administration Act.
[30] [2015] AATA 732, [14], [19].
The decision in Hooker was cited with approval by Deputy President Humphries in Secretary, Department of Social Services and Hollis (‘Hollis’) as follows:[31]
However, Dr Hollis needs to show more than the circumstances she faced were special …
Thus, in order for the time for making a claim to be extended, the Secretary (and in turn the Tribunal) must be satisfied of two things: first, that circumstances existed that were special and, secondly, that those special circumstances prevented the claimant from making her claim within time.
[31][2015] AATA 941, [30], [31].
The term ‘special circumstances’ is not defined in the Act however it has been extensively considered in case law. In Beadle and Director-General of Social Security, the Tribunal stated:
An expression such as "special circumstances" is by its very nature incapable of precise or exhaustive definition. The qualifying adjective looks to circumstances that are unusual, uncommon or exceptional. Whether circumstances answer any of these descriptions must depend upon the context in which they occur. For it is the context which allows one to say that the circumstances in one case are markedly different from the usual run of cases. This is not to say that the circumstances must be unique but they must have a particular quality of unusualness that permits them to be described as special.[32]
[32] [1984] AATA 176, [12].
In Groth v Secretary, Department of Social Security,[33] Kiefel J, as Her Honour then was, observed that special circumstances:[34]
Would require something to distinguish…[the] case from others, to take it out of the usual or ordinary case…it would of course follow that if one were to conclude that something unfair, unintended or unjust had occurred that there must be some feature out of the ordinary.
[33][1995] FCA 1708.
[34]Ibid, [12].
The reason the Applicant was not paid rent assistance was because he failed to return the Rent Certificate issued to him on 7 March 2016, failed to seek review of the Cancellation Decision until 4 January 2021, and did not provide verification of his rent at the Rosebery property until 13 September 2021.
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant not being aware that his rent assistance was cancelled on 5 April 2016 is not a ‘special circumstance’ that would justify the exercise of the discretion contained in subsection 109E(2) of the Administration Act to permit the back-dating of payment of arrears of rent assistance prior to 1 July 2019. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is anything unusual or out of the ordinary which prevented the Applicant from requesting review of the decision to cancel his rent assistance within 52 weeks of 5 April 2016.
DECISION
The Reviewable Decision is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 56 (fifty-six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Dr Linda Kirk
.....................................[SGD]...................................
Associate
Dated: 29 August 2023
Date(s) of hearing:
27 June 2023
Applicant:
Self-represented
Solicitors for the Respondent:
E. Ulrich, Services Australia
0
2
0