Van Den Bosch and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Van Den Bosch against a decision by Centrelink to raise a debt of $13,447.08 for overpayment of age pension between 8 May 2012 and 10 August 2015. The dispute centred on whether a property purchased by Mr Van Den Bosch should have been included in the calculation of his assets for the purposes of the age pension assets test, and whether the debt should be waived or written off. The decision was made by Dr I Alexander, Senior Member.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the value of the Koonawarra property should have been included in the calculation of Mr Van Den Bosch's assets for the age pension, and if so, whether there were grounds to write off or waive the resulting debt. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether the ANZ loan secured against Mr Van Den Bosch's principal place of residence (Blacktown property) could be deducted from his assets, and whether his financial arrangements constituted "special circumstances" warranting a waiver of the debt.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Section 1121(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) allows for the reduction of an asset's value by a charge or encumbrance, this does not apply to assets disregarded under Section 1118, such as a principal place of residence. As the ANZ loan was secured against Mr Van Den Bosch's Blacktown property, the loan balance could not be deducted from his assets. Therefore, the value of the Koonawarra property should have been included in the assets test calculation. Regarding the waiver of the debt, the Tribunal found no evidence of administrative error by Centrelink. Furthermore, Mr Van Den Bosch's incorrect assumptions about his financial obligations and failure to make appropriate enquiries did not constitute "special circumstances" that would render the debt unfair or unjust, as interpreted by judicial precedent. The Tribunal also noted that Mr Van Den Bosch had the capacity to pay the debt, having already repaid a significant portion.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that Centrelink's decision to raise the debt was correct and that the calculation of the debt was accurate. The decision under review was affirmed.