Winch and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
[2016] AATA 286
•4 May 2016
Winch and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2016] AATA 286 (4 May 2016)
Division
GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s)
2015/4755 & 2015/6076
Re
Irene Winch & Harold Winch
APPLICANT
And
Secretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member CR Walsh
Date 4 May 2016 Place Perth The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
.........[Sgd]...............................................................
Senior Member CR Walsh
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – age pension – assets test – financial hardship rules – whether $50,000 gift (being a deprived asset) can be disregarded in determining rate of age pension - severe financial hardship – unrealisable assets – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 – s 11(1) - s 11(12) - s 1123(1) – s 1125 – s 1126AC – s 1126AC(2)(b) - s 1126AD – s 1127 – s 1129(1)(a) – s 1129(1)(b) – s 1129(1)(c) – s 1129(1)(e) – s 1130(1)
CASES
Fischer and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 633
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
ReTwelftree and Repatriation Commission (1986) 10 ALD 34
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Guide to Social Security Law – s 1.1.S.120 - s 4.6.7.10
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member CR Walsh
4 May 2016
INTRODUCTION
This application concerns whether Mr and Mrs Winch’s rate of age pension should be assessed under the assets test “financial hardship” rules in Division 3 of Part 3.12 of Chapter 3 of the Social Security Act 1991 (SSA) and, if so, the rate of age pension payable to them.
More specifically, Mr and Mrs Winch seek a review of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Social Services & Child Support Division (SSCSD), dated 25 August 2015, that affirmed Centrelink’s decision to assess Mr and Mrs Winch’s age pension entitlement under the “assets test” rather than the assets test “financial hardship” rules for the reason that Mr and Mrs Finch had gifted $50,000 to their daughter on 5 December 2011.
FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mr and Mrs Finch claimed and were granted age pension on 14 December 2012. Centrelink granted Mr and Mrs Finch a reduced rate of age pension, described as a “part pension”, as a result of applying the “assets test”.
On 16 February 2015, Mr and Mrs Finch contacted Centrelink regarding making a claim for “financial hardship”. A file note, of even date, states:
As per discussion with FIS – CUS[tomer] has a SMSF [self-managed superannuation fund] which has run out of funds thereby CUS is not receiving a pension from it. The SMSF now consists of 3 properties which CUS would sell if she could.
On 19 February 2015, Mr and Mrs Finch lodged a Centrelink “Claim for consideration under hardship” form in which it was requested that the one-third share of three farm properties in Gingin, Western Australia, owned by Mr and Mrs Winch’s self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF), called “The Harold Charles Winch & Irene Shirley Winch Super Fund”, be disregarded from the assessment of Mrs Winch’s assets. In support of the request, Mr and Mrs Winch stated:
Property is in 7 different names. We will be putting Lot 1 on market as soon as we can. At the moment, we don’t have access to funds. We are finding it very difficult to manage on part pension.
There are no funds available in Super Fund to pay any A/C based pension. As soon as property is sold we will have money to pay A/C Based Pension.
We have not received A/C Based Pension since 19/6/14.
In support of their claim for consideration under the financial hardship provisions, Mr and Mrs Finch noted that they owned their retirement village unit unencumbered. However, they are unable to borrow against the property as they did not own the land[1].
[1] The Secretary did not dispute this fact at the hearing of this application.
In further support of their claim for consideration under the financial hardship rules, Mr and Mrs Winch provided various documents in relation to the three SMSF farm properties, as well as a letter from Goodall & Co, accountants and financial advisers, dated 2 December 2013, that stated:
We wish to advise that [the Applicants] are facing a desperate situation....all liquid funds [in their SMSF] have now been exhausted. The remaining asset in their SMSF is a parcel of land which has produced income by way of rent/royalties from mining operations/ These operations have now ceased and the subject land is being rehabilitated by the mining company.
Under the terms of agreement with the mining company, the land will be released back to the SMSF on or before 31st December 2014. This will enable the fund to sell the land and re commence paying their pension. Until this happens they will not receive any monies from their SMSF or from any other source.
On 23 February 2015, Centrelink rejected Mr and Mrs Finch’s claim for age pension under the assets test financial hardship provisions. The decision was made on the basis that Mr and Mrs Finch had gifted $50,000 to their daughter on 5 December 2011 (Original Decision).
Mr and Mrs Finch subsequently requested a review of the Original Decision by a Centrelink authorised review officer (ARO).
On 27 April 2015, a Centrelink ARO affirmed the Original Decision (ARO Decision). The ARO Decision states:
Reasons for Decision
……….
You have requested an assessment of financial hardship because your self-managed superannuation fund is not currently producing income. The fund consists of several properties, owned in share with several other parties, leased to a mining company until 31 December 2014. One property was returned to the fund and has not yet been sold, two other properties are still being repatriated by the mining company.
………
………For asset hardship to be considered it must first be established that you are in sever financial hardship.
A partnered person is in severe financial hardship is; the combined readily available funds of the person and their partner are equal to or less than the readily available funds limit which is twice the annual maximum benefit rate of age pension payable to a partnered person. The readily available f8nds limit in your circumstances is $33,716.80.
………
The cash amount gifted by you on 5 December 2011 of $50,000 must be included in the calculation as a deprived asset. The assessed gifted amount is $40,000.
You have requested that the gifted amount not be included in the assessment of severe financial hardship.
A person who has deprived themselves of assets and/or income would not normally be considered eligible under hardship provisions, even though they may be suffering severe financial hardship. Where the sever financial hardship is not a direct result of the disposal; of income and/or assets but some other unforseen event, AND the person would not have been eligible under the hardship provisions had the disposal not taken place, then the deprived asset is taken into account in the eligibility criteria.
The cash amount gifted by you on 5 December 2011 is considered a deprived asset for the period of five years ending on 4 December 2016. Your current financial circumstances are not due to the disposal of this asset and you would not have been eligible under the hardship provisions if you had not disposal of this asset. Therefore the deprived asset is to be taken in to account in considering whether you are in sever financial hardship.
As your readily available funds, including the deprived asset, are over the readily available funds limit you cannot be considered to be in severe financial hardship and an assessment of asset hardship cannot be made.
Mr and Mrs Finch applied to the SSCSD of the Tribunal for a review of the ARO Decision and, on 25 August 2015, the SSCSD of the Tribunal affirmed the ARO Decision (SSCSD Decision).
In affirming the ARO Decision the SSCSD stated:
……In the tribunal’s view, there is no doubt that the $50,000 gift would have provided readily available funds for Mr and Mrs Winch to pay for their ongoing day-to-day costs…..The evidence before the tribunal does not suggest that if Mr and Mrs Winch had not disposed of the asset, that they would be in a position of severe financial hardship.
On 24 September 2015, Mr and Mrs Winch applied to the Tribunal for a review of the SSCSD Decision.
In support of their application, Mr and Mrs Winch provided a “Statement of Financial Position”, dated 23 November 2015 (SOFP), in which they indicated that their total monthly living expenses (of $2,286) exceed their totally monthly income (of $1,868) by $418.00 per month. The SOFP also states that they owe $53,000 to “R + M Moir” which is “To be Paid when Land sells” and that they owe $2,000 on a Westpac Visa credit card (with a $50 monthly repayment amount).
Further, the SOFP states that Mr and Mrs Finch have no savings, they own a Hyundai 2012 Elantra worth approximately $4,000, they have household furnishings worth $10,000 and their SMSF is worth approximately $499,100 (but is not producing any income).
In support of their application, Mr and Mrs Finch also provided a Statutory Declaration from Ross Douglas Moir, dated 23 November 2015, in which Mr Moir states:
Throughout this year my wife and I have regularly helped support Mr Harold and Mrs Irene Winch by supplementing their food requirements with meat and groceries as well as providing considerable funds on loan as financial assistance to enable them to meet their immediate living expenses.
They having exhausted all possible avenues for financial help, are now in dire need of aid.
We are no longer able to give them any further financial assistance.
There (sic.) personal circumstances are in fact becoming more extreme and of serious concern.
Loan agreements between Mr and Mrs Winch and Mr and Mrs Moir were provided in support of Mr Moir’s Statutory Declaration.
ANALYSIS
Disposals of assets
Section 11(1) of the SSA provides that the expression “disposes of assets” has the meaning given by s 1123 of the SSA. Section 1123(1) of the SSA states:
For the purposes of this Act, a person disposes of assets of the person if:
(a) the person engages in a course of conduct that direction or indirectly:
(i) destroys all or some of the person’s assets; or
(ii) disposes of all or some of the person’s assets; or
(iii) diminishes the value of all or some of the person’s assets; and
(b) one of the following subparagraphs is satisfied:
(i)the person receives no consideration in money or money’s worth for the destruction, disposal or diminution;
(ii)the person receives inadequate consideration in money or money’s worth for the destruction, disposal or diminution;
(iii)the Secretary is satisfied that the person’s purpose, or the dominant purpose, in engaging in that course of conduct was to obtain a social security advantage. [Emphasis added]
“Asset” is defined in s 11(1) of the SSA to mean “property or money (including property or money outside Australia)”. It is common ground that the $50,000 which Mr and Mrs Finch gifted to their daughter on 5 December 2011 is an “asset” for the purposes of s 11(1) of the SSA.
It is not in dispute that Mr and Mrs Finch “disposed of an asset” for the purposes of s 1123(1) of the SSA when they gifted $50,000 to their daughter, for no consideration, on 5 December 2011.
Treatment of disposals of assets
Broadly, from 1 July 2002, disposals of assets are subject to two tests to determine whether the asset disposed of (or “deprived asset”) is assessable or not. First, whether the disposed of amount exceeds the $10,000 single financial year disposal free threshold for the financial year and, second, whether the amount disposed of exceeds the $30,000 5-year disposal free threshold for the current and previous four financial years (not before 1 July 2002) and is not caught under the first test amounts. Deprived assets of a person qualified to receive and age pension are assessed for the full five years from the date of the relevant disposal. The relevant provisions are set out below.
Section 1126AC of the SSA, titled “Disposal of assets in income year – members of couples” provides:
Disposals to which section applies
(1)If there is a disposal (the relevant disposal ) on or after 1 July 2002 of an asset by:
(a)a person who, at the time of the relevant disposal, is a member of a couple; or
(b)the person referred to in paragraph (a) and the person who is, at that time, the partner of the person referred to in that paragraph;
subsection (2) has effect.
Increase in value of assets
(2)Subject to this section, if the amount of the relevant disposal, or the sum of that amount and the amounts (if any) of other disposals of assets previously made by the person, the person's partner, or the person and the person's partner, during the income year in which the relevant disposal took place (whether before or after they became members of the couple), exceeds $10,000, then, for the purposes of this Act, the lesser of the following amounts is to be included in the value of the assets of the person and in the value of the assets of the partner for the period of 5 years starting on the day on which the relevant disposal took place:
(a) one-half of the amount of the relevant disposal;
(b)one-half of the amount by which the sum of the amount of the relevant disposal, and the amounts (if any) of other disposals of assets previously made by the person, the partner, or the person and the partner, during the income year in which the relevant disposal took place, exceeds $10,000. [Emphasis added]
Section 1126AD of the SSA, titled “Disposal of assets in 5 year period – members of couples” provides:
Disposals to which section applies
(1)If there is a disposal (the relevant disposal ) on or after 1 July 2002 of an asset by:
(a)a person who, at the time of the relevant disposal, is a member of a couple; or
(b)the person referred to in paragraph (a) and the person who is, at that time, the partner of the person referred to in that paragraph;
subsection (2) has effect.
Increase in value of assets
(2) Subject to this section, if:
(a)the sum of the amount of the relevant disposal and the amounts of any previous disposals of assets made during the rolling period by the person, the person's partner or the person and the person's partner;
less
(b)the sum of any amounts included in the value of the assets of the person or of the partner during the rolling period under section 1126AA, 1126AB or 1126AC or any previous application or applications of this section;
exceeds $30,000, then, for the purposes of this Act, the lesser of the following amounts is to be included in the value of the assets of the person and in the value of the assets of the partner for the period of 5 years starting on the day on which the relevant disposal took place:
(c) an amount equal to one-half of the excess;
(d) one-half of the amount of the relevant disposal. [Emphasis added]
In the 2011/2012 financial year Mr and Mrs Winch disposed of only one asset, being the gift of $50,000 to their daughter on 5 December 2011, As such, s 1126AC of the SSA is the correct provision to apply in this case[2].
[2] See Fischer and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 633 at [28].
Section 1126AC(2)(b) of the SSA, as set out in paragraph 23 above, has the effect that the amount of the relevant disposal is equal to one half of the amount by which the relevant disposal exceeds $10,000. The disposal of $50,000 by Mr and Mrs Winch to their daughter on 5 December exceeded $10,000 by an amount of $40,000. Consequently, the amount of the relevant disposal attributable to Mr and Mrs Winch is $20,000 each.
Section 1127 of the SSA, titled “Disposition more than 5 years old to be disregarded”, provides limited circumstances in which a disposed asset is to be disregarded. Section 1127 of the SSA provides:
This Division does not apply to a disposition of an asset that took place:
(a) more than 5 years before the time when:
(i) the person who disposed of the asset; or
(ii)if that person was, at the time when the disposition took place, a member of a couple--the person's partner; or
(iii)if that person was, at that time, a family member of another person who is receiving or claiming youth allowance and is not independent--the other person;
became qualified for a social security pension or a social security benefit; or
(b)less than 5 years before the time referred to in paragraph (a) and before the time when the Secretary is satisfied that the person who disposed of the asset could reasonably have expected that the person, the person's partner or the other person, as the case may be, would become qualified for such a pension or benefit. [Emphasis added]
The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before it that at the time Mr and Mrs Winch gifted the $50,000 to their daughter (on 5 December 2011) Mrs Winch was 64 years of age and that within a year of making that gift Mrs Winch turned 65 years of age and became qualified for, claimed and was granted age pension. In such circumstances, the Tribunal finds that Mr and Mrs Winch “could reasonably have expected” that Mrs Winch would become qualified for age pension within five years of gifting $50,000 to their daughter on 5 December 2011. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the $50,000 gift (or “deprived asset”) cannot be disregarded pursuant to s 1127 of the SSA: see Fischer and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 633 at [16]–[24].
Financial hardship rules
The next issue for consideration by the Tribunal is whether the $50,000 gift can be disregarded under the assets test “financial hardship rules” in s 1129 of the SSA. Section 1129 of the SSA relevantly states:
Access to financial hardship rules - pensions
(1) If:
(a) either:
(i)a social security pension is not payable to a person because of the application of an assets test; or
(ii)a person's social security pension rate is determined by the application of an assets test; and
(b) either:
(i)sections 1108 and 1109 (disposal of income) and 1124A, 1125, 1125A, 1126, 1126AA, 1126AB, 1126AC, 1126AD and 1126E (so far as section 1126E relates to sections 1126AA, 1126AB, 1126AC and 1126AD) (disposal of assets) do not apply to the person; or
(ii)the Secretary determines that the application of those sections to the person should, for the purposes of this section, be disregarded; and
(c)the person, or the person's partner, has an unrealisable asset; and
(d)the person lodges with the Department, in a form approved by the Secretary, a request that this section apply to the person; and
(e)the Secretary is satisfied that the person would suffer severe financial hardship if this section did not apply to the person;
the Secretary must determine that this section applies to the person. [Emphasis added]
Each of the conditions in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of s 1129(1) must be satisfied in order that the section may apply.
Section 1129(1)(a)
It is common ground that Mr and Mrs Winch’s age pension rate is determined by the application of the “assets test” and that s 1129(1)(a)(ii) is satisfied in both of their cases.
Section 1129(1)(b)
For the reasons set out above (in paragraphs 21, 22, 25 and 26), the Tribunal finds that Mr and Mrs Winch’s $50,000 gift to their daughter on 5 December 2011 was a disposition of an asset for the purposes of s 1126AC of the SSA. Accordingly, in order to satisfy s 1129(1)(b) of the SSA, it is necessary for the Tribunal to exercise the discretion to disregard the application of s 1126AC of the SSA pursuant to s 1129(1)(b)(ii) of the SSA. This issue is considered below.
The rationale for the financial hardship rules in s 1129 of the SSA is discussed in the Guide to Social Security Law (Guide)[3], at s 4.6.7.10, as follows:
The assets test presumes pension and benefit recipients with substantial assets, apart from their principal home, use those assets to produce income for their own support. If substantial assets are held, but they produce little or no income, a person is expected to rearrange their financial affairs before calling on the community for income support through the social security system.
Sometimes a pension or benefit recipient is unable, or in the case of a pensioner could NOT reasonably be expected, to rearrange their financial affairs. Hardship provisions may mean that these people are able to have certain assets disregarded when calculating their pension or benefit rate. Assets which are disregarded for hardship purposes are called ‘unrealisable assets’ in the SSAct.
[3] The Tribunal should apply lawful ministerial policy (such as the Guide) unless there are cogent reasons not to. For example, its application would produce an unjust result in a particular case: see Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 639-645 per Brennan J.
Section 4.6.7.10 of the Guide further states:
To qualify for hardship provisions a pension or benefit recipient MUST be:
·in severe financial hardship, AND
·be unable to sell or borrow against an asset (or in the case of a pensioner it is unreasonable to expect the person to sell or borrow against an asset), AND
·an assets tested person. [Emphasis added]
The expression “severe financial hardship” is defined, for a partnered person, in s 1.1.S.120 of the Guide as follows:
A partnered person is in severe financial hardship if:
·the combined readily available funds of the person and their partner are equal to or less than the specified limit for a member of a couple (as set out below), AND
·they CANNOT reasonably be expected to sell or borrow against assets (1.1.A.290) to improve their financial position. [Emphasis added]
The combined readily available funds limit in Mr and Mrs Winch’s case is $33,716.80. Mr and Mrs Winch’s readily available funds as at February 2015 were approximately $150.05, which amount is clearly less than their limit. However, as the gift of $50,000 is, for the above reasons, assessable as part of their readily available funds, and by itself amounts to more than their particular limit, the first requirement of “severe financial hardship” (set out immediately above) is not met in their case.
It is clear that by gifting $50,000 to their daughter on 5 December 2011 Mr and Mrs Winch deprived themselves of income that would otherwise have been available to them. That is, in addition to their part-pension they would have had access to $50,000 to assist with their living expenses in the interim period prior to selling their one-third share in the SMSF farm properties.
Section 11(1) of the SSA defines “unrealisable asset” as having the meaning given by s 11(12) and (13) of the SSA. Section 11(12) and (13) of the SSA state:
Unrealisable asset
(12) An asset of a person is an unrealisable asset if:
(a) the person cannot sell or realise the asset; and
(b) the person cannot use the asset as a security for borrowing.
(13)For the purposes of the application of this Act to a social security pension (other than a pension PP (single)), an asset of a person is also an unrealisable asset if:
(a)the person could not reasonably be expected to sell or realise the asset; and
(b)the person could not reasonable be expected to use the asset as a security for borrowing.
Mr and Mrs Winch gave evidence that they own the retirement village unit that they presently live in unencumbered. They explained that they purchased the unit for about $454,000 and spent another $6,000 or so renovating it (i.e. so that the total cost of the unit was approximately $500,000). Mr and Mrs Winch said that the bank had told them that they were unable to borrow against the unit as they owned the building but not the land. Mr and Mrs Winch also said that they did not want to sell the unit as it was a “desirable place” and then they would have to rent somewhere which they did not want to do. As such, the Tribunal finds that Mr and Mrs Winch could sell their retirement unit to improve their financial position but they simply would prefer not to. In such circumstances, the Tribunal finds that Mr and Mrs Winch’s retirement unit is not as “unrealisable asset” as defined in s 11(1) of the SSA. Mr and Mrs Finch also gave evidence that they went a holiday that cost approximately $40,000 soon after they had moved into their retirement unit. This evidence weighs against a finding of “severe financial hardship”: refer to the second requirement for “severe financial hardship” set out in paragraph 34 above.
In relation to the three farm properties in Gingin (comprising Lot 1 (9.27ha), Lot 7 (26ha) and Lot 506 (15.65ha), Mr and Mrs Winch explained the following:
· Mr and Mrs Winch’s SMSF owned a one-third share in the properties, Mrs Winch’s sister and her husband owned a one-third share in the properties and Mrs Winch’s two brothers owned the remaining one-third share in the properties (presumably as tenants in common in equal shares);
· that there was no mortgage on the farm properties as they had been inherited by Mrs Winch and her other family members;
· as the properties are jointly owned family properties all of the relevant family members must to agree to the sale of the properties and, therefore, selling them was not that straightforward;
· the sale of Lot 1 was contracted to sell on 11 June 2014 (approximately eight months before Mr and Mrs Winch lodged their “Claim for Consideration under Hardship” on 19 February 2015). However, that sale contract fell through in August 2014;
· they had asked Elders, the real estate agency currently engaged to sell the SMSF properties, to present them with any offers (i.e. Mr and Mrs Finch said they were “open to all offers”) but that no offers had been forthcoming;
· the properties had not been put to auction as auctioning them was too expensive;
· Lots 7 and 506 have a creek running down the middle of them which is fenced off and not yet fully vegetated and are subject to Environmental Planning Authority requirements, making those two lots more difficult to sell; and
· they understand that the current market value of Lot 1 is approximately $550,000, the current market value of Lot 7 is approximately $550,000 and the current market value of Lot 506 is approximately $450,000. However, the properties had not to date actually been listed for sale at these amounts (i.e. at their current market values).
Based on this evidence, whilst acknowledging that the three Gingin farm properties may be difficult to sell (primarily because they are owned by multiple parties), the Tribunal finds that they are not “unrealisable assets” as defined in s 11(1) of the SSA. More specifically, the Tribunal finds that Mr and Mrs Finch’s SMSF’s one-third share in the three farm properties are not “unrealisable assets” as defined in s 11(1) of the SSA. The main reason for this is that the sale of the three farm properties has, to date, not yet been fully tested as they have not been listed for sale at their current market values. If the three properties were to be sold at or around their current market values, Mr and Mrs Finch would receive sale proceeds of approximately $480,000, after allowing for agents fees. Mrs Finch told the Tribunal that if they could obtain even $400,000 from the sale of their SMSF’s one-third interest in the three farm properties that, “in her mind”, would be sufficient to enable her and her husband “to live a comfortable life”. This evidence weighs against a finding of “severe financial hardship”: refer to the second requirement for “severe financial hardship” set out in paragraph 34 above.
For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds that it is not appropriate to exercise the discretion in s 1129(1)(b)(ii) of the SSA in this case: see Re Twelftree and Repatriation Commission (1986) 10 ALD 34 at 43.
Since, for the above reasons, the Tribunal considers it inappropriate to exercise the discretion contained in s 1129(1)(b)(ii) of the SSA in this case, it becomes unnecessary for the Tribunal to consider whether Mr and Mrs Winch satisfied s 1129(1)(c), (d) and (e) of the SSA.
However, for completeness, the Tribunal makes the following observations in relation to the application of s 1129(1)(c), (d) and (e) of the SSA in this case.
Section 1129(1)(c)
In relation to s 1129(1)(c) of the SSA, for the reasons set out above (in paragraphs 38-40) the evidence before the Tribunal to establish that the three farm properties and, in particular, Mr and Mrs Winch’s SMSF’s one-third share in those properties, are “unrealisable assets”, as defined in s 11(1) of the SSA, such that s 1129(1)(c) of the SSA would not be satisfied in this case.
Section 1129(1)(d)
It is common ground that Mr and Mrs Winch satisfied s 1129(1)(d) of the SSA in that they lodged an approved form, being a Centrelink “Claim for Consideration under Hardship” form with Centrelink on 19 February 2015.
Section 1129(1)(e)
For the reasons provided above (in paragraphs 35 to 40), the Tribunal finds that Mr and Mrs Finch are not in “severe financial hardship”, as defined in the Guide, and, it follows, for the purpose of s 1129(1)(e) of the SSA.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Tribunal affirms the SSCSD Decision.
I certify that the preceding 47 (forty -seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member CR Walsh .......[Sgd].................................................................
Administrative Assistant
Dated 4 May 2016
Date of hearing 22 March 2016 Applicants In person Representative for the
RespondentMr A Burgess Solicitors for the Respondent
Sparke Helmore Lawyers
3
1
1