Spinapolice; Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations

[2006] AATA 191

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 191

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No A2005/282

GENERAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT & WORKPLACE RELATIONS

Applicant

And LUIGINA SPINAPOLICE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr S. Webb, Member

Date3 March 2006

PlaceCanberra

Decision The decision under review is set aside and in substitution thereof the Tribunal decides that the date of effect of the favourable determination concerning parenting payment single in arrears is to be calculated in accordance with these reasons.  The matter will be remitted to the Applicant to calculate the amount of arrears that is payable to Ms Spinapolice in accordance with these reasons.

..............................................

Mr S. Webb, Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY - parenting payment single - rate of payment determined periodically - administrative error - notice of decisions - request for review - effect of request for review outside 13 week period - decision set aside

Social Security Act 1991 ss 503, 1068A

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 ss 36, 37, 67, 68, 83, 109, 110, 123, 126, 129

Austin & Anor v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [1999] FCA 938

Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Rogers [2000] FCA 1447

Re Peura and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 1123

Re Hutton and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2005] AATA 330

Re Fairweather and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2005] AATA 201

Re Rigg and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2006] AATA 9

REASONS FOR DECISION

3 March 2006 Mr S. Webb, Member         

1.      This application is for review of the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“SSAT”) dated 26 July 2005 to set aside primary determinations by the Applicant Secretary and direct that “Ms Spinapolice is entitled to arrears of parenting payment (single) for the period from 25 September 2002 to 4 November 2004, calculated on the basis of her actual income from the E and L Spinapolice partnership during that period”.

2.      At the hearing the Applicant Secretary was represented by Mr Ben Dubé, counsel.  Ms Spinapolice presented her case without representation and gave sworn evidence.

background facts

3.      Essentially the facts are not in dispute.  On 20 September 2002 Ms Spinapolice applied for parenting payment single (“PPS”) in relation to her two children following the breakdown of her marriage to Mr E. Spinapolice (T8).  She provided information about the E & L Spinapolice partnership (“the partnership”) (T9) from which she obtained income and she was granted PPS from 25 September 2002.  Centrelink calculated the rate of PPS that was payable to Ms Spinapolice on the basis, inter alia, of 50 percent of the income of the partnership rather than Ms Spinapolice’s actual income from the partnership (T47). 

4.      On 23 October 2002 Ms Spinapolice was sent a letter setting out information about her PPS and related matters (T10).  Periodically thereafter she was sent correspondence of a similar character, for example on 25 January 2003 (T12), 16 April 2003 (T14), 26 May 2003 (T15), 29 October 2003 (T19), 3 November 2003 (T20), 4 November 2003 (T22), 20 November 2003 (T23), 29 January 2004 (T24), 2 March 2004 (T25), 20 May 2004 (T26), 30 July 2004 (T31), 12 August 2004 (T32) and 15 October 2004 (T34).  These documents are in the form of computer printouts in the materials that are before the Tribunal.  I understand that the format of these documents is different from the format of the letters sent to Ms Spinapolice.  The document in Exhibit A exemplifies the format of some of the letters that were sent to Ms Spinapolice.

5.      On 26 May 2003 Ms Spinapolice was sent a letter requiring her to provide Centrelink with certain information: her personal taxation return and the partnership taxation return for 2002 (T15).  On 30 May 2003 Ms Spinapolice attended the Lanyon Centrelink office and provided information about her actual income from the partnership (T64 folio 317).  It is curious that there is no record in the materials that are before me of the outcome of this attendance and interview.  Nevertheless, it is not disputed that Ms Spinapolice did in fact attend the Lanyon Centrelink office shortly after 26 May 2003 and provided the information that had been requested, and further that she requested a review of her PPS payments at that time. 

6.      On 15 October 2004 Ms Spinapolice contacted the Lanyon Centrelink office in relation to her income details recorded by Centrelink.  She provided taxation returns for the 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 tax years in order to verify her income (T37).  Centrelink calculated that Ms Spinapolice had been underpaid an amount of $2,196.05 in PPS during the period from 25 September 2002 to 12 August 2004 (T39).

7.      On 19 October 2004 Ms Spinapolice was paid an amount of $2,493.81 in PPS arrears for the period from 7 November 2003 to 7 November 2004.  On 2 December 2004 an overpayment debt in the amount of $2,044.75 was raised against Ms Spinapolice (T42 and T48 folio 207-209) on the basis that she was only entitled to PPS arrears from 13 August 2004 to 7 November 2004 because she had not requested a review of earlier decisions within a 13 week period.

8.      I note in passing that overpayment debts were raised against Ms Spinapolice in the amounts of on  $136.29 on 18 March 2003 (T46 folio 193), $955.95 on 3 November 2003 (T45 and T48 folio 215) and $1,088.35 on 1 July 2004 (T46 folio 192).  These overpayment debts arose as a result of Ms Spinapolice under-reporting income she earned from Gatsby Promotions.  On 3 November 2004, on review, Ms Spinapolice’s debt in the amount of $1,088.35 was recalculated to zero (T41).

9.      On 12 November 2004 Ms Spinapolice lodged a claim for compensation for defective administration (T44, T43 and T59).  That claim is a matter for the Applicant Secretary and it is not before this Tribunal in these proceedings.  Nevertheless, the matter was referred for merits review (T62).

10.     On 10 May 2005 an authorised review officer reviewed the underpayment of PPS to Ms Spinapolice in the period from 25 September 2002 to 4 November 2004 and decided to affirm the primary determination that she was not entitled to payment of PPS in arrears for that period (T64-T67).  

11.     Ms Spinapolice requested review by the SSAT.  That Tribunal decided to set aside the decision of the review officer because Ms Spinapolice had not been given requisite notice of decisions concerning the rate of her PPS in the period from 25 September 2002 to 4 November 2004, deciding for that reason that Ms Spinapolice is entitled to payment of PPS arrears during that period.  That decision is brought for review by this application.

issues

12.     The issue for determination is whether Ms Spinapolice is entitled to arrears payment of PPS in the period from 25 September 2002 to 4 November 2004.  However, as will appear, the issue at the heart of the matter is whether Ms Spinapolice was properly notified of determinations concerning her PPS under the applicable legislation from time to time during that period.  It must be determined whether the letters she was sent are compliant with the notice requirements under the applicable law.

legislation

13.      The application rises for determination under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (“the Administration Act”) with reference to the Social Security Act 1991 (“the SS Act”).

14. Under the Administration Act, the Secretary must determine a claim for PPS (s36) and must determine to grant the claim if the claimant is qualified and PPS is payable (s 37). The qualification requirements for PPS are set out at s 500 of the SS Act. The rate of a person’s PPS is calculated under s 503 of the SS Act, applying the rate calculator set out at s 1068A of that Act. The ordinary income of a claimant is to be taken into account by applying Module E of the rate calculator. By written notice the Secretary may require a claimant to provide, inter alia, information about any change in their income (ss 67 and 68, Administration Act). A determination of the Secretary in relation to a claim continues in effect until a subsequent determination takes effect or the payment is automatically cancelled in certain circumstances or the claimant dies (s 123, Administration Act). As can be seen from these provisions the Secretary must determine the rate of a person’s PPS taking into account changes in their ordinary income from time to time. Any such determination may be subject to review by the Secretary if there is sufficient reason (s 126, Administration Act) or by application of the claimant (s 129, Administration Act).

15. The date of effect of a determination resulting from review is to be worked out by applying relevant sections of the Administration Act. Essentially, in this case, the date of effect of the favourable determination is to be worked out under s 109 of the Administration Act:

“Section 109
Date of effect of favourable determination resulting from review

(1) If:

(a)a decision (the original decision) is made in relation to a person's social security payment; and

(b)a notice is given to the person informing the person of the original decision; and

(c)within 13 weeks after the notice is given, the person applies to the Secretary, under section 129, for review of the original decision; and

(d)the favourable determination is made as a result of the application for review;

the favourable determination takes effect on the day on which the determination embodying the original decision took effect.

(2) If:

(a) a decision (the original decision) is made in relation to a person's social security payment; and

(b) a notice is given to the person informing the person of the original decision; and

(c) more than 13 weeks after the notice is given, the person applies to the Secretary, under section 129, for review of the original decision; and

(d)the favourable determination is made as a result of the application for review;

the favourable determination takes effect on the day on which the application for review was made.

(3) If:

(a)a decision (the original decision) is made in relation to a person's social security payment; and

(b) the person is not given notice of the original decision; and

(c) the person applies to the Secretary, under section 129, for review of the original decision; and

(d) the favourable determination is made as a result of the application for review;

the favourable determination takes effect on the day on which the determination embodying the original decision took effect.

...”

16.     There is no temporal constraint on the review of an ‘original decision’.  The date on which a favourable determination on review has effect, however, is to be worked out on the basis of the giving of notice by the Secretary and the making of an application for review, or the commencing of an own-motion review by the Secretary, as the case may be, within the period of 13 weeks thereafter or otherwise.  In the former the date of effect of a favourable determination is the date on which the original decision had effect.  In the latter case a favourable determination has effect only from the date on which the review was requested or commenced.

consideration and findings

17.      Making this decision I have carefully considered all of the material placed before me, the submissions of the parties, the relevant legislation and caselaw.

18.     It is not in dispute that Ms Spinapolice was underpaid PPS in the period from 25 September 2002 to 4 November 2004 as a result of her income from the partnership being incorrectly recorded in successive original decisions by delegates of the Secretary.  It is necessary to identify each of those decisions.

original decisions and notice

19. It is plain enough that the rate of a person’s PPS payment is to be determined by the Secretary in accordance with ss 503 and 1068A of the SS Act. A determination by the Secretary of the rate of a person’s PPS has continuing effect under the terms of s 123 of the Administration Act until a subsequent determination is made or the payment is no longer payable. A change to the rate of a person’s PPS that is made by a computer program under the control of the Secretary is taken to be a determination by the Secretary and has effect on the date the change was made (s 83 Administration Act). It follows that a variation to the rate of a person’s PPS is by determination of the Secretary, and any such determination constitutes an ‘original decision’ for the purposes of s 109 of the Administration Act.

20.     In the Secretary’s submission original decisions concerning the rate of Ms Spinapolice’s PPS were made and notice was given on or about 23 October 2002, 25 January 2003, 16 April 2003, 26 May 2003, 29 October 2003, 3 November 2003, 20 November 2003, 29 January 2004, 2 March 2004, 20 May 2004, 30 July 2004, 12 August 2004 and 15 October 2004.  On each of these dates Ms Spinapolice was sent a letter (T10, T12, T14, T15, T19, T20, T23, T24, T25, T26, T31, T32 and T34) that, in the Applicant’s submission, constitutes notice of the original decision in each case. 

21.     I note in passing that Ms Spinapolice does not dispute that she received the aforementioned letters as well as other letters from Centrelink concerning her PPS.  Ms Spinapolice gave oral evidence that she did not read the letters with any care or attention to detail.  Nor did she understand that each letter was notice that a decision had been made in relation to which she could seek review.  Ms Spinapolice explained that she adopted a “set and forget” approach to her PPS payments, and relied substantially on Centrelink to calculate her entitlement correctly.  It is relevant to note that PPS overpayment debts were raised against Ms Spinapolice on 3 occasions during the period in question as a result of her under-declaring income she earned in employment.

22.     Nevertheless, careful consideration of the rate of PPS that was actually paid to Ms Spinapolice in the period from 25 September 2002 to 4 November 2004 (T56 folios 288-293 with reference to T29, T36 and T50) reveals that the rate of her PPS was initially determined on 23 October 2002 (T10) in relation to her claim, thereafter being varied from time to time.  The evidence indicates that the rate of Ms Spinapolice’s PPS was varied on 29 occasions.  Necessarily, each such variation was the result of an original decision. 

23.     There is scant evidence before me about the manner in which those original decisions were made, or the dates on which they were made.  What can be discerned from the evidence is the date on which each decision had effect on the rate of Ms Spinapolice’s PPS payments, as follows:

17 January 2003                   rate decrease

31 January 2003                   rate increase

14 March 2003  rate increase

28 March 2003  rate increase

25 April 2003  rate increase

9 May 2003rate increase

23 May 2003  rate decrease

20 June 2003  rate increase

4 July 2003rate increase

12 September 2003             rate increase

26 September 2003             rate increase

24 October 2003                   rate decrease

7 November 2003                 rate increase

30 January 2004                   rate increase

13 February 2004                 rate decrease

27 February 2004                 rate decrease

12 March 2004  rate increase

26 March 2004  rate increase

9 April 2004  rate increase

23 April 2004  rate decrease

21 May 2004  rate increase

4 June 2004rate decrease

18 June 2004  rate decrease

2 July 2004rate decrease

16 July 2004  rate decrease

30 July 2004  rate increase

10 September 2004             rate increase

24 September 2004             rate decrease

22 October 2004                   rate decrease

24. I am reasonably satisfied and find that original decisions were made in relation to the rate of Ms Spinapolice’s PPS on or about 23 October 2002 and each of the above listed dates. As this review concerns the rate of Ms Spinapolice’s PPS payments from 25 September 2002 to 4 November 2004, it follows for the purposes of s 109 of the Administration Act (insofar as that section applies) that it is necessary to determine whether she was given notice of each of these decisions. As will appear, I am satisfied that she was not.

notice

25.     It is necessary first to deal with the letters identified by the Applicant and another letter of a similar character that appears at T22.  The letters on which the Applicant relies are in two different formats with different content.  The first group of letters (T10, T12, T14, T15, T19, T20, T23, T31 and T34) are in a standard format and, with the exception of the documents at T14 and T31, set out information about Ms Spinapolice’s PPS, including the amount of her ‘immediate payment’ and the composition of her ‘regular payment’, being the fortnightly amount of her next or ongoing PPS payment rate, the date of the next ‘regular payment’, the amount of her Pharmaceutical Allowance, the total combined amount and “Information used for calculating your regular payment”, being an annual income amount.  On the reverse side these letters set out standard information about the recipient’s obligations and rights, including the statement:

“If you do not agree with this decision, phone us or come in to see us.  We will reconsider your case and change the decision if appropriate…  Remember, if you do not ask for the decision to be reviewed within 13 weeks of being told about it, you can only get back payment from the date you ask.”

26.     The documents at T14 and T31 do not include information about the ‘immediate payment’ and only set out information about the forthcoming ‘regular payment’, including an amount to be deducted for the purpose of debt recovery.

27.     Are these letters notices of decisions that have been made in relation to Ms Spinapolice’s PPS?  I am satisfied that they are with the exception of T14 and T31, which are not.  There is no requirement for a notice to set out the reasons for a decision, but the fact of the decision and its content or result must be plainly communicated (see Austin & Anor v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [1999] FCA 938, Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Rogers [2000] FCA 1447 and recent relevant decisions of this Tribunal: Re Peura and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 1123, Re Hutton and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2005] AATA 330, Re Fairweather and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2005] AATA 201 and Re Rigg and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2006] AATA 9).

28.     The letters at T10, T12, T15, T19 folio 97, T20, T23 and T34 are plainly intelligible without reference to prior correspondence or documents and convey to the reader that a decision has been made without the need for inference, even though none of the letters, with the exception of the letter at T19 folio 97, state in so many words that a decision has been made.  It is necessary to read each letter to understand its content and a failure to do so does not diminish the significance of the contents.  With the exception of the document at T19 folio 97, each of these letters plainly conveys the fact of a PPS rate decision and its result to a reader, and I am satisfied that they are notices of decisions.  The previous rate and the new rate are both set out.  The date on which the new rate is payable is provided.  These elements are the content of the decision.  Information, albeit in a standard format, is provided about the recipient’s right of review and the effect of requesting review after the passage of 13 weeks from the notification date. 

29.     The letter at T19 folio 97 concerns and gives notice of a decision to suspend PPS payments to Ms Spinapolice.  Similar to the letters at T14 and T31, it does not set out information about the ‘immediate payment’ or the prior rate of PPS and is not, therefore, notice of a decision concerning the rate of PPS.  For that reason the letter at T19 folio 97 must be distinguished from other letters in this group. 

30.     The letters at T14 and T31 plainly convey the results of decisions but in the absence of information about the ‘immediate (or last) payment’ it can only be inferred that, in each case, a decision has been made.  In order to discern what the decision is it is necessary to refer to other information.  Without reference to the immediate past rate of PPS it is not possible to ascertain either letter, on its face, whether a decision has been made to vary the rate of PPS.  In the case of a letter that does not state in plain language that it is a notice of a decision, for the fact of the decision to be conveyed to a reader it is necessary to set out each of essential elements of the decision: if a person’s rate of payment has been varied by a decision, the essential elements of such a decision are the respective rates.  That said, it would be desirable for any purported notice of a decision to announce itself as such, thereby avoiding any ambiguity.  The documents at T14 and T31 do not announce themselves to be notices of decisions, nor do they contain all the essential elements of decisions that are purported to give notice of.  I am not satisfied, therefore, that the documents at T14 and T31 properly convey to a reader that decisions have been made or even what the decisions are.  It follows that they are not notices of decisions.

31. Are the second group of letters on which the Applicant relies (T22, T24, T25, T26 and T32) notices of decisions for the purposes of s 109 of the Administration Act? I am reasonably satisfied that they are. These letters required Ms Spinapolice to report her income to Centrelink each fortnight on specified dates. It is in that context, nonetheless, that each letter specifies her previous PPS payment amounts and her declared income and then sets out the amount of her ‘regular payment’ that is to apply from a specified date, including the PPS amount, the Pharmaceutical Allowance amount, the combined amount and any debt repayment amount. That information plainly conveys that a decision has been made and the content of the decision, that is, to vary the rate of PPS on the basis of Ms Spinapolice’s declared income. Each of these letters includes the same standard paragraph of information about the recipient’s rights of review and the effect of seeking review after thirteen weeks as appears in the first group of letters.

32.     I am satisfied, therefore, that the letters at T10, T12, T15, T20, T22, T23, T24, T25, T26, T32 and T34 constitute notice of an original decision concerning Ms Spinapolice’s PPS rate to which each refers.  The dates of those notices are:

23 October 2002
25 January 2003
26 May 2003
3 November 2003
4 November 2003
20 November 2003
29 January 2004
2 March 2004
20 May 2004
12 August 2004
15 October 2004

33.     Considering these dates, on or about which original decisions appear to have been made in relation to Ms Spinapolice’s PPS, and the dates of the original decisions aforementioned in paragraph 23, it is clear that Ms Spinapolice was not given notice of all of the decisions that were made in relation to her PPS rate during the relevant period from 25 September 2002 to 4 November 2004.  I so find.

requests for review and resultant determinations

34.     I am satisfied Ms Spinapolice requested a review of her PPS rate and entitlement from the date of grant during her meeting with Centrelink staff on or about 30 May 2003.  In so finding I accept Ms Spinapolice’s oral evidence in relation to her request for review at that time even though she could not recall the precise date.  The document at T18 folio 86 indicates that she attended an interview at the Lanyon Centrelink office at 11.25am on 30 May 2003 and a further appointment was made, which was subsequently cancelled.  However, the outcome of the interview and any subsequent attendance by Ms Spinapolice is not recorded (see T64 folio 317).

35.     During the hearing the Applicant conceded that Ms Spinapolice had in fact requested a review on or about 1 June 2003.  However the outcome of the review is not recorded with any clarity.   On 13 May 2003 the Centrelink records include a note “business income incorrectly coded off, 130503, will request 2002 ITR as follow up action customer may or may not be entitled to arrears payment see PS screen” (T18 folio 87).  On 26 May 2003 Ms Spinapolice was sent a letter requesting her to provide 2002 taxation returns for herself and the partnership (T15).  If any decision resulted from the review it remains opaque.

36.     Also on 26 May 2003 Ms Spinapolice was sent a letter setting out information about her PPS amount at that time based on an annual income amount of $17,578.82 (T15 folio 77).  She was sent further letters in relation to her PPS on 29 October, 3 November 2003 and 20 November 2003, each specifying an annual income amount of $11,139.80 (T19 folio 97, T20 and T23).  Careful examination of the amounts of PPS Ms Spinapolice was paid reveals that her PPS rate increased marginally on 20 June 2003 ($0.34), 4 July 2003 ($1.26), 12 September 2003 ($5.36), 26 September 2003 ($7.14) and subsequently decreased substantially on 24 and 29 October 2003.  The reasons for these variations and their relationship, if any, to the review Ms Spinapolice requested is unclear. 

37.     On the material before me I am unable to determine whether or when the review was completed, and whether any determination was made in relation to Ms Spinapolice’s income for the purpose of calculating her PPS.  The evidence indicates that successive decisions were made in relation to the rate of PPS that was payable to Ms Spinapolice on the basis of her income from the partnership, which was recorded incorrectly. 

38.     I am satisfied and it is not in dispute that Ms Spinapolice requested a review of her PPS entitlement on 15 October 2004 (T37).  This review resulted in a favourable determination, whereby Ms Spinapolice’s income records from the partnership were corrected and her rate of PPS was varied.  She was also paid an amount of PPS in arrears, covering the period of 1 year.

date of effect

39. The date of effect of the favourable determination, and hence any payment of arrears, is to be determined pursuant to s 109 of the Administration Act.

40. In the case of original decisions of which Ms Spinapolice was given notice and she requested review within 13 weeks of the notice, subs 109(1) applies with the effect date being the date on which the original decision had effect. In the case of original decisions of which Ms Spinapolice was given notice and she did not request review within 13 weeks of the notice, subs 109(2) applies with the effect date being the date on which she requested review. In the case of original decisions of which Ms Spinapolice was not given notice, subs 109(3) applies with the date of effect being the date the original decision had effect.

41. It follows that the date of effect of the original decisions that are referred to in paragraph 23 of these reasons must be assessed in relation to subs 109(1), (2) or (3) of the Administration Act.

42.     Doing the best with the materials that are before me, I find T10, T12, T15, T20, T22, T23, T24, T25, T26, T32 and T34 constitute notice of an original decision concerning Ms Spinapolice’s PPS rate to which each refers.  The dates of those notices are:

NoticeDate  Date of effect

T1023 October 2002   30 May 2003

T1225 January 2003   30 May 2003

T1526 May 2003   original date of effect

T203 November 2003   25 October 2004

T224 November 2003   25 October 2004

T2320 November 2003   25 October 2004

T2429 January 2004   25 October 2004

T252 March 2004   25 October 2004

T2620 May 2004   25 October 2004

T3212 August 2004   original date of effect

T3415 October 2004   original date of effect

43. However, that does not conclude the matter. There are original decisions of which Ms Spinapolice was not given notice. By operation of s 123 of the Administration Act those decisions replace decisions that were previously then in force. Thus a decision of which Ms Spinapolice was given notice ceased to have effect when a subsequent decision came into effect, whether or not notice of that subsequent decision was given. In cases where notice was not given of the decision by application of subs 109(3) of the Administration Act the date of effect of the favourable determination will be the date on which the original decision had effect.

44.     For these reasons the decision under review cannot stand and must be set aside.  In substitution it is decided that the date of effect of the favourable determination in relation to original decisions in the period from 23 September 2002 to 25 October 2004 is to be calculated in accordance with these reasons.  The matter will be remitted to the Applicant to calculate the amount of arrears that is payable to Ms Spinapolice in accordance with these reasons.

45.     In conclusion I note that Ms Spinapolice has made a claim for compensation for defective administration and, in her submission, has suffered loss and detriment because of the administrative errors of Centrelink over an extended period.  That matter is not before me for determination.  Nonetheless, her frustration and upset are not surprising in the circumstances, and warrant comment.  She asserts that a person in her shoes (a single mother without a detailed knowledge of the social security system, who is struggling to make ends meet and bring up two children) should be able to rely on Centrelink to properly calculate her entitlements.  That is a reasonable expectation.  However, it is an unfortunate fact that from time to time errors occur in the administration of the social security system.  When an error occurs and is brought to the attention of Centrelink, those errors should be reviewed and corrected with diligence. 

46.     A person such as Ms Spinapolice should be able to rely on the statutory and departmental review procedures being properly and expeditiously implemented.  It appears that that may not have occurred in this case.  Even though Ms Spinapolice must bear some responsibility for what has occurred as a result of not properly reading the notices and letters that she was sent, it would be unfair and unreasonable to deny her her proper PPS entitlement in the periods following her request for review on or about 30 May 2003.  That is especially so because, correctly, her PPS claim was reviewed on at least three occasions in relation to her under-reporting of earned income, in relation to which debts were raised and, in part at least, recovered.

47.     A person has a right to be properly notified of decisions made by government that affect their interests.  That is especially so when decisions are made that directly affect the income of a person who relies on the social security system for income support.  I have found that Ms Spinapolice was not notified of all of the decisions that were made concerning the rate of her PPS. 

48.     Finally, it is desirable to communicate notice of a decision in plain language.   The notices Ms Spinapolice was given, while complying to the requirement of a notice, would nonetheless benefit from clear identification as a notice of a decision and from the use of plain language to convey the decision that has been made.

I certify that the 48 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr S. Webb, Member

Signed:       .(P Strauch)..............................................
  Associate

Date of Hearing  7 February 2006
Date of Decision  3 March 2006
Counsel for the Applicant             Ben Dubé
Solicitor for the Applicant             Tim Ffrench
  Centrelink Legal Services Branch
Respondent  Self-represented