Wilma Van Haaften and Secretary, Department of Social Services

[2015] AATA 52

[2015] AATA 52

Division	GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
File Number	2014/3378
Re	Wilma Van Haaften
APPLICANT
And	Secretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal	Dr Ion Alexander, Member
Date	30 January 2015
Place	Sydney

The reviewable decision is affirmed.

......................[sgd]........................................

Dr Ion Alexander, Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY –– carers allowance –– disability care load assessment –– assessment of care load questionnaire ––decision affirmed

LEGISLATION

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth); s s 197 B, 953

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Disability Care Load Assessment (Child) Determination 2010

REASONS FOR DECISION

Dr Ion Alexander, Member

BACKGROUND

1. On 1 July 2013 Ms Van Haaften lodged claims for Carer Allowance and Carer Payment for the care of her son.

2. Ms Van Haaften’s claims were rejected by Centrelink, both initially and on internal review, and subsequently by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) on the basis that the care provided for her son did not meet the level of care required for the payments.

3. In this proceeding Ms Van Haaften seeks review of the decision of the SSAT.

4. Ms Van Haaften attended the hearing unrepresented and was able to give oral evidence.

   ISSUES

5. In order to qualify for Carer Payment and/or Carer Allowance Ms Van Haaften had to satisfy the provisions as set out in section 197B and section 953 of the Social SecurityAct 1991 (the Act) as at the date of the claim or within 13 weeks of lodging the claim (“the claim period”), in accordance with the requirements of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, that is, between 1 July 2013 and 23 September 2013.

6. In particular Ms Van Haaften was required to have a qualifying rating of “intense” under the Disability Care Load Assessment (Child) Determination 2010 (the Determination).

7. Part 2 of the Determination stipulates that a qualifying rating of “intense” requires a total score of 85 or more in the Assessment of Care Load (ACL) questionnaire and a total score of greater than 0 in the Professional questionnaire.

8. At the hearing the Respondent conceded that Ms Van Haaften had satisfied all the provisions of the relevant legislation except the requirement of a qualifying rating of “intense” on the basis that her ACL questionnaire score was less than 85

9. Therefore, the definitive issue in this matter is whether during the claim period Ms Van Haaften’s ACL questionnaire score was less than 85.

   THE EVIDENCE

10. In support of her application in July 2013 Ms Van Haaften provided a completed and signed ACL questionnaire.

11. The questionnaire had 54 multiple choice questions which required Ms Van Haaften to tick the box which she considered to be consistent with her son’s care needs.

12. Centrelink determined that the score on the ACL questionnaire was 30.

13. This score was amended to 55 by the Authorised Review Officer in November 2013 after further telephone discussions with Ms Van Haaften.

14. At the SSAT hearing in 2014 the ACL questionnaire was again reviewed and following some minor amendments made by Ms Van Haaften a new score of 61 was calculated.

15. I note that the SSAT had considered the variation in the scores but was satisfied that the score of 61 accurately represented the level care provided by Ms Van Haaften at that time.

16. The Tribunal was provided with an additional ACL questionnaire, completed in November 2014 with the assistance of a Legal Aid Solicitor, which resulted in a score of 115.

17. In her oral evidence Ms Van Haaften conceded that the assessment as scored by the SSAT was accurate at that time and that her son’s issues and care needs had significantly changed in the ensuing 12 months and agreed that the ACL questionnaire score in November 2014 reflected his current needs and not his needs during the claim  period.

    CONSIDERATION

18. The evidence before the Tribunal clearly supports a conclusion that during the claim period Ms Van Haaften’s ACL questionnaire score was less than 85 and that therefore she was not qualified for Carer Allowance or Carer Payment.

    DECISION

19. The reviewable decision is affirmed.

20.       I certify that the preceding 19 (nineteen) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr Ion Alexander, Member

..................[sgd]...............................................

Associate

Dated 30 January 2015

Date of hearing	14  January 2015
Applicant	In person
Solicitor for the Respondent	Department of Human Services