|
Post by Banjo on Oct 7, 2017 15:54:50 GMT 7
Armstrong and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2017] AATA 1545 (18 August 2017)Last Updated: 27 September 2017 Armstrong and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2017] AATA 1545 (18 August 2017) Division: GENERAL DIVISION File Number(s): 2017/0080 Re: Gary Armstrong APPLICANT And Secretary, Department of Social Services RESPONDENT DECISION Tribunal: Senior Member Bill Stefaniak AM, RFD Date: 18 August 2017 Date of written reasons: 19 September 2017 Place: Canberra For the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing of this matter, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review. ............................................................... Senior Member Bill Stefaniak AM, RFD CATCHWORDS SOCIAL SECURITY – suspension of payment – whether ceased to be an Australian resident – whether payment portable in circumstances of short residence – resuming residence in Australia – incorrect advice – Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration – decision under review affirmed LEGISLATION Social Security Act 1991, ss 7, 1220 Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, s 80 CASES Re David and SDFaCS [2004] AATA 179; (2004) 80 ALD 792 SECONDARY MATERIALS Guide to Social Security Law WRITTEN REASONS FOR ORAL DECISION Senior Member Bill Stefaniak AM, RFD www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA/2017/1545.html
|
|
|
Post by itsmylife08 on Oct 7, 2017 21:14:23 GMT 7
Banjo don't tell me you read all of that Jeeezz I nearly fell asleep after 30 paragraphs, interesting I must say though
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Oct 8, 2017 6:54:20 GMT 7
The very complexity of the case would tempt me to take it further.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2017 12:17:07 GMT 7
WOW That was a lot to read Just my thoughts He should not have been given the DSP Because was not a long term Resident of Australia He did not have Portability to stay Overseas Too many people give him incorrect Information From Centrelink When he applied for the OAp he should have stayed in Australia He was not entitled to the OAP Based on not being here for 2 years before applying Or staying for 2 years after receiving the OAP Was probably told incorrect information again by Centrelink
Was interesting to read that he may be entitled to apply for compensation
He needs to see a lawyer The Ombudsman even the Welfare Rights
I believe this is where people need to find there own information as well as from Centrelink
Just my reading of the Appeal
I wish him luck for his future
|
|