Centrelink’s cancelling of 80-year-old’s age pension ‘absurd
Nov 17, 2021 6:54:35 GMT 7
bear likes this
Post by Banjo on Nov 17, 2021 6:54:35 GMT 7
Centrelink’s cancelling of 80-year-old’s age pension ‘absurd and wrong’, tribunal rules
Aged care resident has advanced dementia and did not ‘have the capacity to comprehend’ the decision
Centrelink’s decision to cancel the age pension of an 80-year-old man who lives in a nursing home with advanced dementia was “absurd and wrong”, a tribunal has found.
In a judgment published this week, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal criticised Centrelink for cancelling the man’s age pension when he did not “personally have the capacity to comprehend … a decision to suspend his pension”.
The tribunal heard David Fry was living in an aged care home and his son, John, was appointed his legal guardian, after David was discovered driving on the wrong side of the road and judged to be “mentally incapacitated”.
John Fry became responsible for managing his father’s dealings with Centrelink, which had been paying David the age pension since 2006.
In May 2018, the agency suspended David Fry’s age pension because John failed to provide updated financial details for one of his father’s superannuation accounts.
John, who the tribunal heard was having difficulty obtaining the information and was unfamiliar with Centrelink processes and his father’s finances, called the agency and the payment was reinstated.
However, his father’s pension was suspended again in September for the same reason, before the agency cancelled it altogether in December 2018.
The last letter Centrelink sent before the payment was cancelled, on 20 October, was sent to David Fry, rather than his son.
The tribunal said that letter had no legal effect because the agency knew Fry “did not have the mental capacity to be aware of, let alone respond to, the requests”.
In December 2018, Centrelink wrote to both men advising that David’s pension had been cancelled because “we did not receive a reply to the income stream review letter we sent you”.
In ruling against Centrelink, the tribunal member Roger Maguire said it was “difficult to contemplate a person who might be more vulnerable than a hospitalised septuagenarian suffering from dementia”.
While acknowledging Fry’s son hadn’t complied with the notices in a timely fashion, Maguire said that was in part because he had “no knowledge of his father’s financial affairs and had become guardian of his father’s affairs against his father’s will”.
“His father was not forthcoming with information, and this placed him in a situation of particular difficulty,” he said.
Under social security law, Centrelink may suspend or cancel a payment when a person fails to comply with a certain notice.
However, the tribunal noted the agency also has powers to obtain information from a person’s financial institution.
It did not do so, instead opting to cancel Fry’s age pension.
Centrelink argued the decision to cancel Fry’s payment was “rational and proportionate”, but Maguire found it was “absurd and wrong”.
The financial information sought by Centrelink eventually confirmed that Fry remained eligible for the pension, the tribunal said.
Centrelink also argued Fry should not get backpay for the period he was without the pension – between December 2018 and approximately January 2020 – because the cancellation was not appealed within 13 weeks.
The tribunal ruled against Centrelink, finding there was evidence John had called the agency three times in October.
www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/17/centrelinks-cancelling-of-80-year-olds-age-pension-absurd-and-wrong-tribunal-rules
Aged care resident has advanced dementia and did not ‘have the capacity to comprehend’ the decision
Centrelink’s decision to cancel the age pension of an 80-year-old man who lives in a nursing home with advanced dementia was “absurd and wrong”, a tribunal has found.
In a judgment published this week, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal criticised Centrelink for cancelling the man’s age pension when he did not “personally have the capacity to comprehend … a decision to suspend his pension”.
The tribunal heard David Fry was living in an aged care home and his son, John, was appointed his legal guardian, after David was discovered driving on the wrong side of the road and judged to be “mentally incapacitated”.
John Fry became responsible for managing his father’s dealings with Centrelink, which had been paying David the age pension since 2006.
In May 2018, the agency suspended David Fry’s age pension because John failed to provide updated financial details for one of his father’s superannuation accounts.
John, who the tribunal heard was having difficulty obtaining the information and was unfamiliar with Centrelink processes and his father’s finances, called the agency and the payment was reinstated.
However, his father’s pension was suspended again in September for the same reason, before the agency cancelled it altogether in December 2018.
The last letter Centrelink sent before the payment was cancelled, on 20 October, was sent to David Fry, rather than his son.
The tribunal said that letter had no legal effect because the agency knew Fry “did not have the mental capacity to be aware of, let alone respond to, the requests”.
In December 2018, Centrelink wrote to both men advising that David’s pension had been cancelled because “we did not receive a reply to the income stream review letter we sent you”.
In ruling against Centrelink, the tribunal member Roger Maguire said it was “difficult to contemplate a person who might be more vulnerable than a hospitalised septuagenarian suffering from dementia”.
While acknowledging Fry’s son hadn’t complied with the notices in a timely fashion, Maguire said that was in part because he had “no knowledge of his father’s financial affairs and had become guardian of his father’s affairs against his father’s will”.
“His father was not forthcoming with information, and this placed him in a situation of particular difficulty,” he said.
Under social security law, Centrelink may suspend or cancel a payment when a person fails to comply with a certain notice.
However, the tribunal noted the agency also has powers to obtain information from a person’s financial institution.
It did not do so, instead opting to cancel Fry’s age pension.
Centrelink argued the decision to cancel Fry’s payment was “rational and proportionate”, but Maguire found it was “absurd and wrong”.
The financial information sought by Centrelink eventually confirmed that Fry remained eligible for the pension, the tribunal said.
Centrelink also argued Fry should not get backpay for the period he was without the pension – between December 2018 and approximately January 2020 – because the cancellation was not appealed within 13 weeks.
The tribunal ruled against Centrelink, finding there was evidence John had called the agency three times in October.
www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/17/centrelinks-cancelling-of-80-year-olds-age-pension-absurd-and-wrong-tribunal-rules
