Sickler and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

[2022] AATA 4674

Sickler and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2022] AATA 4674 (20 October 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2022/PC024384

APPLICANT:  Miss Sickler

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

TRIBUNAL:Member S Cullimore

DECISION DATE:  20 October 2022

1. The decision of the Tribunal and the reasons for the decision were delivered orally on 20 October 2022.

2. The Tribunal’s decision is to grant Miss Sickler an extension of time to object.

3. The Tribunal’s oral reasons have been transcribed and the transcript constitutes the reasons for the Tribunal’s decision in this matter.

4. The transcript is attached.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – application for extension of time - satisfactory explanation for the lengthy delay – significant merit – no real prejudice to the other parent - extension of time granted

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.

____________________________________________________________

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
____________________________________________________________

No. 2022/PC024384

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

SOCIAL SERVICES & CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

MEMBER CULLIMORE

No. PC024384 of 2022

MISS SICKLER

ADELAIDE REGISTRY

ORAL DECISION OF MEMBER CULLIMORE
2.30 PM, THURSDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2022

ORAL DECISION OF MEMBER CULLIMORE  [2.30 pm]

This is an oral decision in the matter of - the applicant is [Ms Sickler], it is an extension of time.  Matter reference 2022/PC024384.  My decision is to grant Ms Sickler an extension of time to object to the delegate’s decision in this matter.  The delegate’s decision was made 20 December 2021 and is at page 8 of the papers.  The decision was to accept a series of payments by the father of the children concerned, [Mr A], made by him directly to a bank account of Ms Sickler, as non-agency payments.  There were 17 such payments made, which were in April 2021 and November 2021, in total they came to $289.  As these are what are known as ordinary non-agency payments, the $289 amount represents the amount in issue. 

The parents have two children, Ms Sickler has 100 per cent care, [Mr A] is currently assessed to pay the minimum annual rate of child support.  The tribunal finds that over the period concerned, he regularly transferred a sum of $17 a week or thereabouts to the applicant.  The applicant after the delegate decision, shortly after the delegate decision, contacted the agency indicating that she did not agree with the delegate decision, this was 20 December 2021.  She was told by the agency that she needed to lodge a written objection form, these were sent to her but apparently were repeatedly thrown away or disposed of by family members with whom Ms Sickler was living.  In consequence a written objection form was not lodged until 12 July 2022, the agency refused to give Ms Sickler an extension of time to object, that decision was made 26 July 2022. 

She appealed to the AAT on 4 August 2022, the matter was heard 20 October 2022.  In considering an application for an extension at the time, the tribunal must consider at least four relevant factors, one is the length of the delay, in this case that is some six months.  The objection should have been lodged in late January 2021, it was not lodged until late July - sorry 2022, it was not in fact, lodged until about six months later, that is quite a considerable time lapse.  As to the reasons for the delay in objecting, the tribunal accepts that the forms were destroyed or removed by family members, and this is a plausible, if unusual explanation for the delay in this matter.  As regards to the merits of the case, the tribunal has come to the view that there is in fact, considerable merit in any proposed objection. 

It is clear from the documents on the child support agency file, in particular the bank statements from page 29 onwards.  That the applicant was receiving numerous payments per fortnight into her bank account, all of these payments were denoted as child support, some of them came from the father, some of them came from the child support agency.  However it was confusing, and it was reasonable to be confused, in the applicant’s position, about what these payments were actually for and where they were from.  When she initially told the agency that she accepted they were for child support, the tribunal is satisfied that she did not give full and informed consent to those payments being credited to [Mr A’s] account. 

She was simply confused as to whether those payments that had come from [Mr A], had come from the child support agency themselves.  Therefore it is likely that she did not give a proper and informed consent to those payments from [Mr A] being treated as non-agency payments.  The tribunal is satisfied there is considerable merit in that objection.  As to the issue as to whether there is prejudice to the payer, the tribunal notices that he is only assessed that he is to pay the minimum annual rate.  And it is proper in those circumstances that his liability should not be furthered reduced by any undeserved non-agency payments, the children need as much financial support as he can give. 

Therefore while the tribunal has some concerns over the length of the delay in this matter, and they accept that the reasons for delay are unusual, because the objection has significant merit, and there is no real prejudice to the payer father, the tribunal has decided to grant an extension of time.  That is the end of these oral reasons.

END OF ORAL DECISION  [2.36 pm]