|
Post by Banjo on May 20, 2013 4:13:36 GMT 7
We tend to assume that the assessors are poorly trained but most seem to have some sort of a health profession back ground and many would have completed psychology courses as part of their education.
What we try to do here is help people understand why some of the questions are asked so they can consider their responses more carefully. Playing games with them, like pretending to turn up with a lawyer or some other professional, just wont work on most of the people you will have to deal with, particularly when you get higher into the appeals system. Anyone here who has been interviewed by Centrelink Investigations branch will understand what I'm talking about.
Winning by "tricks" isn't viable, try turning up for a taxation interview with a friend you claim is a lawyer when he's not and see how far it gets you.
The only way we can achieve anything with the government is to know what our rights are and stick to our story.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on May 20, 2013 4:32:02 GMT 7
....and another thing. Centrelink monitor this forum and all other internet content that involves them. I've posted the board names (Yahoo Answers) and in one case the real name and facebook page of two officers who's job it is to do this in the past. I'm sure they now have an inter department memo listed as "How to deal with people claiming to be lawyers at interviews"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2013 13:03:25 GMT 7
Dont really know what you mean by that statement maxi maxi. But looking back it was a bit of a mind game on her part which I refused to take any part in. It really would have been good if she recorded when I disclosed that the pharmaceuticals I was on were the reason I was sedated and possibly more relaxed, perhaps too much so. But she obviously didn't feel that was pertinent. Anyway I dont need to put on a big show for those blockheads because I know my case is genuine and so do they. My question is how the hell can a nurse override a medical practitioner and specialists, this would not happen in any other setting. This might be a game on their side but to myself and most others trying to rightfully get UP it's anything but. I guess their is no limit to the amount of new evidence you can submit and the JCAs that must assess it. Or would I be better off going straight for an appeal? And does anyone think that legally recording them would be of benefit if later appealed, or don't they take what you say yourself as legit? Hi Mick:) The more documentary evidence you take to support your claim, gives them less time to gloss over a predetermined file which they already posses. I honestly believe and proved it in my case in particular, that your personal presentation and supporting documentary affidavits at the JCA, is at least 80% of the battle mate. I just coached another through the process and his assessor said; "she could not see any problems with him obtaining "IP" in her eyes"! It's the same principle of turning up for a job in reverse, so just think about that please mate? We have messaged each other and I have offered you my help and advice, and its entirely up to you if you accept or not. But believe me mate; if you show up to another JCA or Appeal unprepared, then you will obviously get exactly the same result unfortunately! Look at it this way Mick; if your an apprentice and turn up for work on your first day, who do you take direction and advice from; is it the apprentices or the tradesmen? I have so many different angles and approaches that you wouldn't begin to believe, and that's why I got the job before anyone else, so to speak? You've said you don't need to put on a big show because your genuine, and you saw where that got you now, hey mate? Were all genuine DSPers old mate and they know that, but its not enough to gain "IP" and until you realise that, you will keep getting the same results. You already partly know what to expect next time, and please don't be frightened to ask my advice in the future, Ok mate? Hope all is well for you in the world Mick:) Cheers and chin up:) Cheetal...
|
|
|
Post by mick on May 20, 2013 20:37:40 GMT 7
Thanks for the advice Cheetal definitely food for thought. I will persist with them. So are you currently living overseas now?
|
|
|
Post by anotherdsp on Jul 5, 2013 9:57:51 GMT 7
well got to aust yestday lunchtime and aroud 5 pm checked to see if i was logged as back in aust but no not yet,so then i checked this morning and yes i was ,so what i am thinking is that the crosschecking comuter fired up at midnight and marked me down as back in aust. so what i am getting at is that if people are planning a quick turn around i would make sure that your stay includes midnight in aust?? i done this by checking my status for an advance payment online?? just something i thought might be a way to chex where you are in the system and dont having to bother to ring them on a quick turnaround?? that is my two bobs worht for today folks !! over an out!! lol
|
|
|
Post by wbmania72 on Jul 5, 2013 14:50:15 GMT 7
Granted U/P in 2004 and left for overseas for good but didnt work out due F$@*%$ family issue as usual and came back. i thought i was automatically eligible for U/P for forever until wanted to do the next trip later on. blew it big time.still kicking my butt and cant forgive myself.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jul 5, 2013 16:38:44 GMT 7
Yes mate, they moved the goal posts big time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 8:26:22 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jul 16, 2013 10:20:40 GMT 7
I suggested when the 6 week portability was introduced that people having to use it would need to be careful until they saw what Centrelink's residency requirements based on absence from Australia were going to be.
My advice hasn't changed, make sure you stay a tourist when traveling, that means NO overseas residence, NO businesses and NO relationships.
|
|
|
Post by baranghope on Jul 16, 2013 14:55:09 GMT 7
Yes, visarun, it just makes sense with things a bit greyscale on residency, that they would revert to the standard international tax residency equation . . . onshore for 6 months and a day and you are a resident of that country. Which explains the old 26 weeks DSP travel framework, which still exists, the only difference being that standard DSPers have to travel in unaffordable 6 week stints, while UP grantees can suck up 26 weeks without raising residency eyebrows. Almost makes you wonder if it is worth the trouble of applying for UP if you want to keep residency . . . but wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Jul 16, 2013 17:23:17 GMT 7
I suggested when the 6 week portability was introduced that people having to use it would need to be careful until they saw what Centrelink's residency requirements based on absence from Australia were going to be. My advice hasn't changed, make sure you stay a tourist when traveling, that means NO overseas residence, NO businesses and NO relationships. NO relationships, Me thinks "Take Away" is better anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Jul 16, 2013 17:26:59 GMT 7
With the 6 weeks and residency issue I was informed over the phone with Missing Link aka C/L that if DSP recipient's are out of Australia for more than 6 month's per year they would be classified as non-resident's. Although I would wager if I telephoned again and asked the same question to a different C/L employee I would get a different answer. Just call them 3 times and get 3 different answers, that's common.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 18:12:53 GMT 7
|
|