Quay and Abdullah (Child support)

[2020] AATA 3646

Quay and Abdullah (Child support) [2020] AATA 3646 (11 June 2020)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2019/BC018138

APPLICANT:  Mr Quay

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Ms Abdullah

TRIBUNAL:Member S Letch

DECISION DATE:  11 June 2020

DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – registration details – application for collection of the maintenance liability - whether the collection should have commenced from an earlier date – collection date was correctly recorded - decision under review affirmed

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr Quay and Ms Abdullah are the parents of [the child].

2. A parent may elect to collect child support privately, or ask the Child Support Agency (CSA) to collect child support on their behalf. Where a person “opts in” for collection by the CSA, they can ask the CSA to collect any unpaid amounts in the three months prior to the request (and in exceptional circumstances, up to 9 months): section 28A of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.  This matter concerns only the date from which Mr Quay applied for collection; the issue of any arrears is a separate decision and not presently before the Tribunal.

3. According to the CSA, Mr Quay first requested “agency collection” on 19 August 2019. On objection, the CSA decided Mr Quay applied for collection on 19 August 2019, and not on any earlier date.

4. Mr Quay applied to the Tribunal for further review. Mr Quay and Ms Abdullah participated in the Tribunal’s hearing by conference telephone. Following the hearing, the Tribunal sought a recording of a CSA telephone call on 25 June 2019 (folio 20 of the CSA materials); the CSA responded to advise it had spoken only to Ms Abdullah on that day, and that there was no telephone call recording with Mr Quay.

5. Mr Quay’s submissions to the hearing were consistent with his written application:

   I will accept decision of arrears of $864.59 from 11/04/2019 - 10/07/2019 however reason for arrears request was provided by myself with evidence given that no payment was made in lieu of child support during this time, however do not accept no collection of Child Support for the period of 11/07/2019 through to 18/09/2019 with Child Support collect being earliest date of 19/08/2019.

   Online request to of change of care was input on the 22/07/2019 to be effective from 11/07/2019 in this application there is no area to request change of Child Support to be Child Support Collect from Private arrangement. Phone calls were made to CSA from the beginning of August through to 15/08/2019 to check status of this request and ensure Child Support Collect - during these calls were advised request was in system however over due - due to this being over due another online request was input 15/08/2019.

   Following this 2nd request another call was made on the 19/08/2019 to check status of initial request as it had been close to a month since lodgement and no action or contact by case manager - during this call I was advised that there were errors on the initial request and new request and this would be escalated through to the team and case manager to review - this is evident on the call logs.

   Again status was checked on the 26/08/2019 in which I was advised the same errors were on the request and this would be escalated again. Following this it was actioned on the 26/08/2019 and it is noted on the objection decision that CSA made correcting errors to decision accepting my application were made on the 26/08/2019/

   If initial requested lodged on the 22/07/2019 was actioned in the appropriate time frame as set by CSA and contact made to myself via Case Manager I would have confirmed all my information and request confirmed to have Child Support as Child Support collect and this would have been effective the change of the 11/07/2019 this would not have been delayed till the subsequent from calls made by myself to the CSA to rectify the issues and get system to be correct as per my requests.

   I should not be financially disadvantaged in supporting my child from errors in the Child Support System and the delay in Case Manager access and have no CSA for the period of 11/07/2019 through to the 18/08/2019.

6. The CSA objections officer made the following observations:

   The Registrar must accept the payee's application for collection of the amounts the payer has not paid in the three months immediately before the date the liability first becomes enforceable. The Registrar will need to be satisfied that the amounts have actually not been paid.

   We have reviewed the case history and Mr Quay`s online applications for a change in care.

   Notably, the online applications for a change in care (22 July 2019 and 15 August 2019) do not contain an application for collection.

   A review of our case history confirms the earliest date that Mr Quay applied for an application for collection was 19 August 2019. The case notes from 19 August 2019 indicate a request for collection of ongoing liability only. This application does not include a request for arrears.

   On this basis we a have made a decision to accept Mr Quay application for collection from 19 August 2019 being the earliest date Mr Quay made his application for collection. No arrears period had been requested.

7. Mr Quay told the Tribunal during the hearing that he “had provided CSA with information” during 2019; he recalled that he had asked the CSA on 18 May 2019 (folio 15 of the CSA materials) in a telephone call about recorded care for the CSA to collect. He had not heard anything further so he phoned them again to ask “what the go was”; he recalled that may have been on 25 June 2019 (starting at folio 19 of the CSA materials). He indicated it was very difficult to recall specific dates he had contact with the CSA; he said he spoke to numerous CSA officers which “made it very hard to track”.

8. As indicated earlier in these reasons, following the hearing, the Tribunal sought a recording of a call on 25 June 2019; the Tribunal accepts the CSA response that the only recording on that day was a call with Ms Abdullah, and that the CSA had not spoken with Mr Quay.

9. The Tribunal has carefully examined the CSA file records to determine whether it could be satisfied that Mr Quay had earlier applied for collection by the CSA. The file records reveal contact by telephone and online in respect of care issues; the first record of an application for CSA collection was documented on 19 August 2019 (folio 37 of the CSA materials).

10. Ultimately, it is a question of fact for the Tribunal to be satisfied of the date Mr Quay applied for collection.

11. Mr Quay’s recollection of events is understandably somewhat vague; these events occurred some time ago.  

12. On balance, the Tribunal considers it inherently unlikely that the CSA would not have recorded and taken steps to collect in the event Mr Quay had expressly sought collection, particularly given Mr Quay’s evidence that he had done so on multiple occasions, implying the CSA had failed to act on multiple occasions. The Tribunal considers it likely Mr Quay was under the genuine, but mistaken, understanding that the CSA would collect on his behalf. The CSA may perhaps have done more to advise Mr Quay that the case was “private collect” and that he could opt for CSA collection.

13. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds on the evidence available to it that Mr Quay first applied for collection on 19 August 2019; as this is the same conclusion as the objections officer, the decision under review will be affirmed.

DECISION

The decision under review is affirmed.