|
Post by blahblahblah on May 19, 2016 14:36:03 GMT 7
DSP I believe has mutual obligations for people with 8 plus hours a week who claimed past 2011. No. It's from 1 July 2014, and - is under age 35, AND
- has an assessed work capacity of at least 8 hours a week, AND
- if the person has one or more dependent children, the youngest dependent child is 6 years of age or older.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 5:11:23 GMT 7
DSP I believe has mutual obligations for people with 8 plus hours a week who claimed past 2011. The letter I received just says 'partial capacity to work of less than 8 hours per week'. I'm getting pretty confused about it all, they have said on the letter that "We will contact you soon to update your job plan", so I guess I'll just have to wait and find out what they have in store for me. Ok if its less than 8 hours it shouldn't be compulsory at all then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 6:36:31 GMT 7
DSP I believe has mutual obligations for people with 8 plus hours a week who claimed past 2011. No. It's from 1 July 2014, and - is under age 35, AND
- has an assessed work capacity of at least 8 hours a week, AND
- if the person has one or more dependent children, the youngest dependent child is 6 years of age or older.
For under 35s yes. But if applied for DSP after Sept 2011 and you have a non severe impairment and have capacity you have POS requirements.
|
|
|
Post by blahblahblah on May 20, 2016 11:35:33 GMT 7
No. It's from 1 July 2014, and - is under age 35, AND
- has an assessed work capacity of at least 8 hours a week, AND
- if the person has one or more dependent children, the youngest dependent child is 6 years of age or older.
For under 35s yes. But if applied for DSP after Sept 2011 and you have a non severe impairment and have capacity you have POS requirements. Earlier it was something you believed to be true, now you seem more certain. Perhaps you can go one step further and show some proof.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 12:23:44 GMT 7
guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/1/1/a/30To satisfy the CITW (1.1.C.330) criteria for DSP, people who claim DSP on or after 3 September 2011 and are assessed as not having a severe impairment (1.1.S.127) or who are the reviewed 2008-2011 DSP starters must, among other things, demonstrate that they have actively participated in a POS (1.1.P.440). Not that it matters much here since the OP said they are less than 8 hours a week which makes me wonder then why the appointments are compulsory. Has to be a stuff up in there on Centrelinks part to have given mandatory requirements.
|
|
|
Post by forrester on May 20, 2016 13:02:27 GMT 7
Thanks for the feedback guys, I really appreciate it.
The information contained in the letter does seem somewhat contradictory to other information available online, in that I am over 35, and have been assessed as having a partial capacity to work of less than 8 hours per week, yet the letter then goes on to talk about mutual obligation and contacting me to update my job plan. There is some other info in the letter that seems rather broad so it could be a semi general letter also that isn't personal specific. I guess I'll find out once I'm summoned lol.
I did have one further question if I may. Is there a category lower than the one of "partial capacity to work less than 8 hours per week"? Like a 'no future capacity' or something similar? The way I read it 'work less than 8 hours' could mean work 0 hours.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 13:21:44 GMT 7
0-7 hours is what they mean by less than 8 hours. YOu should contact them because if you are less than 8 you should have no mutual obligations.
|
|
|
Post by blahblahblah on May 20, 2016 13:56:39 GMT 7
guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/1/1/a/30To satisfy the CITW (1.1.C.330) criteria for DSP, people who claim DSP on or after 3 September 2011 and are assessed as not having a severe impairment (1.1.S.127) or who are the reviewed 2008-2011 DSP starters must, among other things, demonstrate that they have actively participated in a POS (1.1.P.440). Not that it matters much here since the OP said they are less than 8 hours a week which makes me wonder then why the appointments are compulsory. Has to be a stuff up in there on Centrelinks part to have given mandatory requirements. He has already been granted DSP. Latest Update: I've now received a letter saying that "after careful consideration we have decided to grant this (dsp) payment".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 14:18:17 GMT 7
Yeah that is why I said in the bottom paragraph about his mutual obligations that they got it wrong if it was less than 8 hours.
The only thing I could think of is if you voluntarily enter a Program you have to meet appointment obligations.
|
|
|
Post by blahblahblah on May 20, 2016 14:37:51 GMT 7
Let's do this slowly. He has been granted DSP. He is over 35. I provided a link showing which DSP Recipients have Participation Requirements guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/3/6/1/110According to that information he does not have participation requirements. You counter by showing something irrelevant (to do with the application process and eligibility) and talk about number of hours, again irrelevant. You are confusing mutual obligation (participation requirements), which is what he asked about, with a program of support. Having said all of that, I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 15:38:34 GMT 7
But anyway back to my other point, if they got it wrong it is worth calling them up to check on that stuff. Its a big deal for them to mistakenly give you any sort of requirements when 0-7 hour people don't have any.
|
|
|
Post by forrester on May 20, 2016 15:41:37 GMT 7
It's cool guys, all info is useful, I get what you are both saying, just in different ways. Seems I should be right not to have to meet requirements like job search or volunteer hours etc. There were parts of the letter that seemed a little too general not directed at my specific case, so could be irrelevant for me.
Once I find out what the deal is I'll report back, as the letter does seem a bit too focussed on me doing mutual obligation and job plan, hopefully its not the case and the info online is still correct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 15:43:14 GMT 7
It's cool guys, all info is useful, I get what you are both saying, just in different ways. Seems I should be right not to have to meet requirements like job search or volunteer hours etc. There were parts of the letter that seemed a little too general not directed at my specific case, so could be irrelevant for me. Once I find out what the deal is I'll report back, as the letter does seem a bit too focussed on me doing mutual obligation and job plan, hopefully its not the case and the info online is still correct. Cool, hope it works out well for ya though. Glad your application was accepted.
|
|
|
Post by forrester on May 20, 2016 15:45:06 GMT 7
Yeah so bottom line I got the answers I was looking for so thanks for that, feel a lot less worried now
|
|
|
Post by murphy on May 21, 2016 9:48:17 GMT 7
Welcome Forrester. Thank you for sharing your experience. I'm glad you now have the chance to take a breath. My observation is that Centrelink is sending you generic letters, parts of which - mutual obligation - don't really apply to your circumstances. If I were in your position I would make absolutely sure that any "requirement" they attempt to place on you is mandatory. If it's actually voluntary, decline. We all need to be able to focus on our health, not jumping through bureaucratic hoops.
|
|