WXNX and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security second review)
[2025] ARTA 1129
•28 July 2025
WXNX and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security second review) [2025] ARTA 1129 (28 July 2025)
Applicant/s: WXNX
Respondent: Secretary, Department of Social Services
Tribunal Number: 2023/2689
Tribunal:Senior Member T. Simon (second review)
Place:Sydney
Date:28 July 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision of Centrelink made on 4 February 2021 to raise an age pension debt of $36,216.25 for the period 7 November 2014 to 14 September 2020.
.
……………………[SGD]………………………………………..
Senior Member T Simon
Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 201(1A) - 201(1B) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
Catchwords
SOCIAL SECURITY – age pension – making of a claim – administrative error - special circumstances – write off – decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)Cases
Angelakos v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (2007) FCA 25
Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2003] FCAFC 133 Greene and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2024] AATA 811Greene and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2024] AATA 811
Secondary Materials
Social Security Guide
Statement of Reasons
This is an application for second review of a decision made by Services Australia – Centrelink (Centrelink). On 4 February 2021 Centrelink decided to raise an age pension debt in the amount of $36,216.25 for the period 7 November 2014 to 14 September 2020. That decision was affirmed by an authorised review officer of Centrelink on 14 July 2022 and by the Tribunal on 16 November 2025.
The applicant made the application for second review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 11 April 2023.
From 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal became the Administrative Review Tribunal and under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth), applications for review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Administrative Review Tribunal.
Pursuant to s 131D of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), a person whose interests are affected by an ART social services decision may apply to the Tribunal for second review of the decision. An ART social services decision includes an eligible social services decision which has been affirmed by the Tribunal; s 131D(3)(a). An eligible social services decision includes a decision made under the Social Security Act 1991; s 131C(g). Section 131J of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act provides that an application for second review must be made within the time prescribed under s 18 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024. Relevantly, s 18 provides that a second review application must be made within 28 days of the party receiving the decision.
The second review application was made outside the 28 days period. At the time of making the second review application the applicant also lodged an extension of time application which was not opposed by the respondent and allowed by the Tribunal.
The applicant did not appear at the hearing, he instead elected to be represented by his son. The applicant’s son appeared at hearing by video link. The son holds a power of attorney for his father. A copy of the power of attorney was provided to the Tribunal. The respondent requested that the applicant be made available for cross examination. The applicant provided medical evidence that he was not able to attend for cross examination due to cognitive decline. The applicant’s son was put on notice that the failure of the applicant to appear at the hearing could impact the weight which the Tribunal could give his evidence.
The Tribunal had before it the following documents:
(i)A bundle of documents provided by the respondent on 6 June 2023, totalling 268 pages (Centrelink documents).
(ii)Submissions and documents provided by the applicant on 23 November 2023.
(iii)Submissions and attachments provided by the applicant on 9 July 2024.
(iv)Submissions and documents provided by the applicant on 15 November 2024.
(v)The applicant’s further statements of facts, issues and contentions provided to the Tribunal and respondent on the day of the hearing.
The Tribunal has considered the documents provided by the parties and the oral submissions made at the hearing in coming to its decision.
CONSIDERATION
On 20 November 2014, Centrelink sent a letter notifying the applicant of his payment for the age pension from 7 November 2014.[1]
[1] Centrelink documents pp 236-238.
On 4 February 2021, Centrelink calculated a debt of $36,216.25 for the period 7 November 2014 to 14 September 2020.[2] The debt was raised on the basis that the applicant did not provide all details of his MLC managed investments at the time he made the claim for the aged pension on 7 November 2014.
[2] Centrelink documents pp 153-173.
The applicant submits that he never intended to submit a claim for the aged pension, but rather had just wanted to enquire about his eligibility for aged pension payments. He submits that when he attended Centrelink on 7 November 2014, it was for the purposes of making a general enquiry and it was recorded as being so. He also submits that there was no intention to make the claim, and the applicant was pressured by undue influence into signing the age pension claim forms.
Did the applicant make a claim for the aged pension?
Section 11 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 provides that as a general rule a person who wants a social security payment granted must make a claim for the payment in accordance with the Division. A social security payment is defined to include the age pension.[3]
[3] S 23, Social Security Act 1991.
Section 16 of the Social Security (Administration) Act relevantly sets out how to make a claim as follows:
(1) A person makes a claim for a social security payment or a concession card:
(a) by lodging a written claim for the payment or card; or
(b) by making the claim in accordance with subsection (7).
…
(4) A written claim is lodged by being delivered:
(a) to a person apparently performing duties at a place approved for the purpose by the Secretary; or
(b) to a person approved for the purpose by the Secretary; or
(c) in a manner, and to a place, approved for the purpose by the Secretary.
…
(7) A person may make a claim in a manner approved by the Secretary for the purposes of this subsection.
(8) The power of the Secretary to make an approval under subsection (7) is not limited by any other provision of this section.
Section 36 of the Social Security (Administration) Act requires the Secretary to either grant or reject a claim. Section 37 requires that the Secretary:
… must determine that a claim for a social security payment is to be granted if the Secretary is satisfied that:
(a) the claimant is qualified for the social security payment; and
(b) the social security payment is payable.
The submissions made on behalf of the applicant are that:
·The applicant objected to signing the claim form because he didn’t understand why he was required to sign. He only signed the forms because Centrelink staff misled him by promising to contact him if they had any questions.
·He was told to hand over the claim forms so they could be assessed and that someone would contact “shortly” regarding his enquiry.
·Centrelink should have followed up on his incomplete claim form and it was not his fault that he was overpaid the age pension. Centrelink’s failure is the breach of procedural fairness at that time and at subsequent times, by actual bias in refusing to address its errors until 5 July 2022.
·The claim forms should never have been processed and Centrelink had a duty to reach out to the applicant at the time to resolve any unanswered questions.
On that basis, it is submitted by the applicant that no debt should arise because the applicant never made a claim for the age pension.
The applicant attended the first review hearing before the Tribunal. In the reasons for the first review decision the Tribunal noted that the applicant gave evidence that he had obtained a claim form from Centrelink in about February 2014. He filled it in at some time after that but did not take it into a Centrelink office until 7 November 2014. He had stated to the Tribunal that he felt "under duress" when he went into the Centrelink office and that as a result he signed and submitted the claim form as he was advised it was the only way to obtain an assessment. He later noted in a letter to Centrelink dated 18 February 2021 that he only partially completed the claim form and asked that someone call him to complete the application. In his evidence to the Tribunal the applicant denied being aware that the form was partially completed when he submitted it.
At the hearing the applicant’s son stated that he had been in contact with his father on three occasions on 7 November 2014, mainly because of his concern for his father’s health and well-being. He stated his father had to come see him the day before he went to Centrelink, and he didn't tell him he was going to make a claim. His father told him that he had the forms, and he was trying to complete them and that is all he wanted to do. His father had been a self-funded retiree since he was about 60 years, and his father didn't need the money. The applicant’s son stated his father was not going to Centrelink to get money, rather all he wanted to do was find out if he was eligible for the pension or not.
For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal find that the applicant intended to submit a claim for the age pension on 7 November 2014 or that he signed the claim form under duress. Other than the applicant’s assertions, there is nothing to support duress or undue influence and no reasonable explanation as to why the applicant would have been pressured to make an application.
The corroborating documents and file notes do not support the applicant’s assertions or position that he attended Centrelink on 7 November 2014 only to make an enquiry.
The Centrelink records indicate that on 21 February 2014 the applicant made initial enquiries about claiming the aged pension.[4] That evidence demonstrates that the applicant had previously made enquiries without making a claim.
[4] Centrelink documents p 116.
A Centrelink records dated 7 November 2014 notes the following:[5]
Customer contacted TORONTO on__7 NOV 2014 regarding General Enquiry
for Age Pension. Information was obtained via Personal - In Office.
Document created by KBW833 on__7 NOV 2014.
Correspondence lodged at TORONTO(TON) on 07/11/2014.
DOCUMENTS RECEIVED:
TRANSFERRED TO:
SEN NAT VIRTUA(SEN)7/11/2014.
…
[5] Centrelink documents p 121.
A Centrelink record dated 7 November 2014 notes the following:[6]
Customer contacted SEN NAT VIRTUAL on__7 NOV 2014 regarding Claim for
Age Pension. Information was obtained via Age Pension and Pension
Bonus claim using Mail. Document created by XX6 on 17 NOV 2014.
AGE claim available, see ECD
[6] Centrelink documents p 120.
The applicant’s son submitted at hearing that those notes show that the Centrelink records were amended after 17 November 2014 to change the record from inquiry to claim and that was done without any authority, and nobody followed up with the applicant regarding further information.
The Tribunal does not find that those records indicate anything untoward on the part of Centrelink, rather they confirm that after the applicant initially attended to enquire about the claim and that he subsequently made one. Steps were taken to progress the claim.
The Centrelink records also contain the claim for “Claim for Age Pension and Pension Bonus” form.[7] The form contains an explanation that the form is to be used when claiming an age pension or pension bonus. The details completed on the form are handwritten and include things such as the applicant’s bank details into which the applicant would like the pension to be paid into. It includes the applicant’s tax file number. The form is signed by the applicant and dated 7 November 2014. Also contained in the documents is the “Income and Assets” form which was lodged with the claim for age pension form.[8] The details on the form were again handwritten and the form was again signed by the applicant and dated 7 November 2014. The applicant also provided statements in relation IAG shares, a Workers Compensation Dust Diseases Board payment and MLC Masterkey Allocated Pension.
[7] Centrelink documents pp 33 -55.
[8] Centrelink documents p 56 -75.
Centrelink sent a letter to the applicant dated 20 November 2014, notifying the applicant of his payment for the age pension from 7 November 2014.[9] The letter sets out that the applicant would receive an immediate payment for the period from 7 November 2014 to 17 November 2014 and then he would receive regular payment from 3 December 2014. The letter also contains the income and asset values used to calculate the pension rate. The applicant did not contest the asset or income values which had been listed on the letter.
[9] Centrelink documents pp 236-238.
Another notice from Centrelink addressed to the applicant on the same day advised the applicant of the cancellation of his Commonwealth Seniors Health Card because he was now in receipt of a pension.[10] Both notices were addressed to the applicant at the postal address which the applicant had provided on his pension claim forms.
[10] Centrelink documents pp 239-240.
It is noted that at various times submissions have been made that the applicant did not receive those letters. The Tribunal notes that the available evidence the applicant has been inconsistent about whether he received the letter. The letter is addressed to the address provided by the applicant on the age pension claim form.
The Tribunal notes the following observation that was made by the Tribunal on first review of the decision at [47]:
…[the applicant] was 80 years of age at the time he made his claim and is 88years of age now. Despite that, [the applicant] gave his evidence in a clear and cogent manner and he was able to write a lengthy letter to Centrelink clearly explaining his objections to the raising of the debt. As already noted, [applicant’s] memory of events was not perfect but as eight years have passed since the events in question, that is not surprising. The Tribunal is satisfied that [applicant’s] age has not been an impediment to his dealings with Centrelink and as such it should not be considered a special circumstance.
In records of a discussions between the applicant and a Centrelink officer on 4 July 2022, it is relevantly noted:[11]
4/07/2022 - … Advised customer that I have read the letter dated 18/02/2021 in relation to overpayment and the reasons customer is appealing the decision. Asked customer if there was any other information he wanted me to consider. Customer advised that he simply went into the service centre to see if he would be eligible for pension but was made to submit claim forms which he wasn't ready to submit. He advised he needed more assistance to complete the form and was told that we would contact him to progress his claim. Customer advised that it was not till a few months later that he realised that we had paid him. Customer on the appeal document stated he didn't receive any correspondence from us in relation to pension grant, however in my conversation with the customer, he went through his communication and found the Age Pension grant letter dated 20/11/2014. When asked customer why he didn't contact us in relation to this letter and the fact that in his mind his application wasn't fully completed so to query the rates paid to him. Customer advised that the wait times for the agency was too long and he just was waiting for us to call him. I also asked did he converse with his financial advisers after claim was granted in 2014 and he said he did and when asked why didn't the nominee contact us to query the rates paid to him...
[11] Centrelink documents p 98
In the reasons for decisions for first review the Tribunal stated the following:
As already noted, [the applicant’s] evidence to the Tribunal was inconsistent with his letter dated 18 February 2021 with regards to his awareness that the form he had submitted was incomplete. Given the written account was first in time, the Tribunal prefers it, although it is apparent, and understandable given the passage of time, that [the applicant’s] recollection of events is not perfect. For example, in the letter he stated that he had never received a letter from Centrelink regarding his claim, but he has subsequently located a copy of the grant letter dated 20 November 2014.
Having considered the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant did indeed receive the letter granting his age pension on 20 November 2014. I was sent to the address the applicant had noted on his application and the applicant has subsequently conformed he did have a copy.
Even if it was assumed that the applicant did not receive the letters, the applicant did subsequently receive age pension payments in his account and would have known the age pension had been granted. There is no evidence that that the applicant made any enquiries with Centrelink after receiving those payments or notified Centrelink that he had never intended to make a claim or that his form which had been lodged was incomplete and he had further information to provide regarding his assets. He continued to receive the age pension into his account.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant did indeed intend to make a claim for the age pension when he provided the claim form to Centrelink on 7 November 2014 and that he did not do so under duress.
The applicant may have told his son that he was not intending to make a claim and that may have been the applicant’s position prior to lodging the claim, however the evidence demonstrates that the father did in fact proceed to make the claim.
The applicant’s son has also repeatedly referred to part 8.1.1.60 of the Social Security Guide as a basis for his father being a vulnerable claimant. The applicant’s son submits that application of that provision means that his father should have been assessed by Centrelink as a vulnerable claimant who had genuine difficulty in providing documentation.
The applicant’s son has misconstrued the application of part 8.1.1.60 of the Social Security Guide. The part is relevant to the deemed claim provisions in sections 13 and 14 of the Social Security (Administration) Act which allows the day of contact about a claim for age pension to be taken as the day the claim is made. It is of no relevance to whether the applicant should have been treated as having made a claim or an enquiry or whether Centrelink should have made further enquiries regarding the applicant’s assets.
Does the applicant have an age pension debt?
Section 43 of the Social Security Act 1991 sets out the qualification requirements for the age pension including an assets and income tests. The rate of age pension payable to a person is calculated by using the Pension Rate Calculator A at the end of section 1064 of the Social Security Act. Under the rate calculator, the income test is known as “the ordinary income test” and is set out in Module E at the end of section 1064. The “assets test” is set out in Module G which is also at the end of section 1064.
In determining a person’s rate of payment, both the income and assets tests are applied. It is not in dispute that the applicant was paid age pension from 7 November 2014 to 14 September 2020 without Centrelink having regard to the totality of the applicant’s assets. No account was taken of the applicant’s MLC managed investment at the time of claim in 2014 which meant the asset value should have been $571,348.00 and not $470,330.00.[12] The applicant was therefore paid more age pension than he was entitled to receive in that period.
[12] Centrelink documents p 132
Subsection 1223(1) of the Social Security Act provides that if a person receives more of a social security payment than they are entitled to receive, for whatever reason, the amount of the excess payment is a debt due to the Commonwealth. Subsection 23(1) of the Act defines the term social security payment to include age pension.
Centrelink have provided the calculations for the adjustment to the rent paid for the period.[13] That adjustment has not been disputed and the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has an age pension debt of $36,216.25 as calculated by Centrelink.
[13] Centrelink documents p 156 - 173
Section 1230C of the Social Security Act provides that where there is a debt due to the Commonwealth under the social security law, the debt is to be recovered from the debtor by the Commonwealth by one or more of the methods set out in that section.
Should the applicant be required to repay any or all of that debt?
Part 5.4 of the Social Security Act deals with the non-recovery of a debt by either write off, which defers action to recover the debt, or by waiver, which extinguishes the right to recover the debt.
Administrative error
Section 1237A of the Social Security Act requires the Secretary to waive a debt, or part of a debt, where the sole cause of the debt is administrative error by the Commonwealth and the amounts overpaid were received by the debtor in good faith.
The Tribunal has already rejected the applicant’s contention that he did not intend to lodge a claim and only intended to make an enquiry. There can be no sole administrative error on that basis.
An issue arises as to whether Centrelink failed to properly consider the applicant’s MLC investment at the time of assessing the claim and whether any such failure amounts to a sole administrative error on the part of Centrelink.
In the “Income and Assets” form which the applicant lodged with the claim for age pension he provided details such as the current market value of his personal assets, motor vehicle, campervan and monies held in bank accounts. The applicant also detailed a loan to his daughter and shares he holds with Insurance Australia Group Ltd (IAG). Under managed investments, the applicant simply noted ‘MLC’. No further details were provided in that regard. The applicant provided several documents relating to his financial investments including the IAG shares, a Workers Compensation Dust Diseases Board (CDDB) payment and MLC Masterkey Allocated Pension.[14] The document in relation to the MLC Masterkey Allocated Pension records as the date of issue ‘16 October 2014’ and notes an account balance as of 1 July 2014 of $197,404.50. The current balance was noted as being $194,206.79. No further details are provided on the form in that regard.
[14] Centrelink documents pp 73 - 75
As stated above, the Centrelink documents contain a letter sent from Centrelink to the applicant dated 20 November 2014 advising him of receipt of the age pension and the Tribunal finds that the applicant did indeed receive the letter.
The letter set out the information used to calculate the applicant’s regular payment:
Total Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $470,339.00
Annual Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9,784.01
In Greene and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2024] AATA 811, the Tribunal on second review of a decision stated:
126. This Tribunal in Secretary, Department of Social Services and Gilmartin [2022] AATA 723 (Gilmartin) at paragraph [62] rejected the claims of sole administrative error in circumstances where Ms Gilmartin had not taken steps to correct information communicated to her by Centrelink. The Tribunal provided:
62. The notice provisions of the FA Administration Act make it clear that upon being issued with such a notice, a positive obligation is placed on the FTB payment recipient to not only advise Centrelink if their circumstances change, but to also check the details outlined in the notice and advise Centrelink if they are incorrect. The Respondent in failing to engage with the letters (which constitute notices for the purposes of the FA Administration Act) she received from Centrelink has failed to meet the obligation to ensure that the information being used to calculate her entitlements to FTB were correct. Regardless of the fact that the Respondent considered her circumstances had not changed and that Centrelink had access to all relevant information it may need, she has through her failure to positively engage with Centrelink contributed to the circumstances in which the FTB debts in question arose.
127. The Applicant contended that the Respondent breached a duty to protect her from being overpaid, however it is not up to the Respondent to make payment elections for the Applicant between annual and fortnightly payments.
128. In Saab and Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment [2021] AATA 2766 (Saab), Senior Member Puplick provided at paragraphs [66] and [68] that it is not up to the Respondent to police the behaviour of benefit recipients:
66. While it might be argued that the department had a responsibility to check up on such matters as to whether or not the children were actually receiving the care in question, this is not a sustainable argument. The Department has no responsibility to “police” the behaviour of benefit recipients, rather the obligation lies on the recipients to ensure and maintain conformity with the benefit conditions or requirements, especially when benefits are paid directly to a recipient, but it also applies when the recipient knows that payments are being made to third parties (in this case the alleged service provider) on their behalf or via their instructions. Their personal responsibility includes responding to departmental correspondence and notices...
68. It is accepted that sole administrative error cannot arise where an applicant has failed in their personal statutory duty to report relevant matters to the Department.
Part 5, Division 1 of the Social Security (Administration) Act sets out a regime for Centrelink to require information to assess the claim. The Tribunal accepts that it was open to Centrelink to make further enquiries with the applicant regarding the MLC account. However, not having done so, does not amount to sole administrative error on the part of Centrelink. It is the applicant who failed to properly complete the form with the information and correct details of his assets. Moreover, when the applicant did receive notification of receipt of his pension and the value of his assets, he did not seek to clarify or update the correct amount of the assets and inform Centrelink.
It was not until 22 September 2020, that the applicant’s then nominee contacted Centrelink to query whether the applicant’s MLC managed investment was recorded and assessed by the Centrelink.[15] Later, Centrelink received a portfolio report from the nominee for the reporting period of 7 November 2014 to 7 November 2014 including documentation for his MLC Masterkey Investment Service Fundamentals.[16]
[15] Centrelink documents p 126
[16] Centrelink documents p 81 - 91
It was the applicant failed to provide all relevant details of his MLC investment on his claim form at the time of making the claim in November 2014. Question 21 of the Income and Assets form requested details about any managed investments. The applicant only partially completed the answer by naming “MLC”.
For those reasons the Tribunal does not find that the debt should waived because of sole administrative error.
Waiver of debt due to special circumstances
Section 1237AAD of the Social Security Act provides that the Tribunal may waive the right to recover all or part of a debt when:
• The debt was not the result of the debtor, or another person, knowingly making false statements or false representations, or knowingly failing or omitting to comply with provisions in the social security law; and
• It is more appropriate to waive, rather than write off, the recovery of the debt.
The Tribunal accepts that the evidence does not demonstrate that the debt was because the applicant, or another person, knowingly made false statements or false representations, or knowingly failed or omitted to comply with provisions in the social security law. While the applicant failed to properly detail his assets on the form, there is nothing to suggest he did so knowingly.
The term special circumstances is not defined in the legislation. The Full Court of the Federal Court in the matter of Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2003] FCAFC 133 at [65] determined that whether there are special circumstances in a particular case is dependent will be dependent on whether there are circumstances that would distinguish the case from the usual case.
In Angelakos v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (2007) FCA 25, the Federal Court concluded that in relation to special circumstances there must be something that distinguishes the case from the ordinary or usual cases. Justice Besanko said at [33]:
I also note that the authorities have emphasised time and again the importance of maintaining flexibility in determining what constitutes special circumstances. The danger is that the test will be overstated if the word 'exceptional' is emphasised. It was not the intention of Parliament to confine the exercise of the discretion to an exceptional. There is less risk of overstatement if the words ‘unusual’ or ‘uncommon’ are emphasised. Those words indicate, correctly in my view, the fact that there must be something that distinguishes the case from the ordinary or usual case. It may not be easy to postulate the ordinary or usual case other than in quite general terms and, in doing so, close attention must be given to the particular statutory context.
Having considered the evidence, the Tribunal does not find that there are special circumstances in this case which would warrant waiver of the debt. There is nothing to suggest that the applicant could not pay back the debt.
The applicant’s age and cognitive decline is not out of the ordinary for age pension recipients. The Tribunal accepts that it would have been prudent for Centrelink to make further enquiries about the applicant’s MLC investment at the time of processing the claim. However, that failure does not outweigh the fact that the applicant failed to properly detail his assets or correct them after he was given notice of the grant of the age pension. The applicant has been substantially overpaid and the applicant has had benefit of the amounts which he was not entitled paid to him.
The Tribunal does not find special circumstances which would warrant the waiving of all or part of the debt in this case.
Write off
Section 1236 of the Social Security Act permits the write off of a debt in prescribed circumstances. On the evidence, none of those prescribed circumstances are applicable to this situation and there is no basis for writing off recovery of the balance of the debt.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal finds that the applicant lodged a claim for the age pension with Centrelink on 7 November 2014 and failed to properly disclose his assets. A debt was properly raised by Centrelink. Having considered the circumstances, the Tribunal finds there is no basis to waive or write off the debt.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision of Centrelink made on 4 February 2021 to raise an age pension debt of $36,216.25 for the period 7 November 2014 to 14 September 2020.
Date(s) of hearing: 30 May 2025 Applicant: Represented by the applicant’s son (power of attorney) Counsel for the Respondent: Mr G Lozynsky, Services Australia
0
3
0