Schiebaan and Secretary, Department of Education

This matter concerned an application by Mr Schiebaan for review of a decision by the Secretary, Department of Education, to refuse to re-credit his FEE-HELP balance. The applicant had enrolled in two units of study for a Graduate Diploma of Psychological Science, with a census date of 22 February 2019. The dispute arose because the applicant sought to withdraw from these units after the census date, incurring a FEE-HELP debt of $4,458.00, and subsequently sought remission of this debt on the grounds of special circumstances.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's circumstances met the criteria for "special circumstances" as defined by the relevant legislation and Administration Guidelines. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if these circumstances were beyond the applicant's control, if they did not make their full impact until on or after the census date, and if they made it impracticable for the applicant to complete the unit requirements. The applicant contended that unsatisfactory online tutorials and a failure by the educational provider to respond to his attempts to unenroll constituted these special circumstances.

The Tribunal considered Chapter 3 of the Administration Guidelines, which outlines the requirements for special circumstances. It noted that circumstances must be beyond a person's control, unusual, uncommon, or abnormal, and not due to the person's action or inaction. Furthermore, the full impact of these circumstances must have occurred on or after the census date, or if before, must have worsened or become apparent only after that date. Finally, the circumstances must have made it impracticable to complete the unit requirements, such as being unable to attend tutorials or complete assessable work. The Tribunal found that the applicant's relocation and dissatisfaction with online tutorials, while inconvenient, did not rise to the level of "special circumstances" as defined. His attempts to unenroll were also found to be insufficient to meet the criteria, particularly as the full impact of his dissatisfaction with the online delivery did not demonstrably occur after the census date in a way that made completion impracticable.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of section 104-25 of the Act, and therefore was not entitled to have his FEE-HELP debt re-credited. The decision under review was affirmed.