|
FAQ
Sept 19, 2011 22:33:20 GMT 7
Post by zorro1 on Sept 19, 2011 22:33:20 GMT 7
hmmm intersting.
So lets say a DSP person has been doing the 13 week trip and decides to notify C/L and say "I dont live in oz anymore so I dont need rent assistance " and then goes about his business.
1 month later he gets a letter saying , "you don't live in oz anymore so no more dsp for you "
|
|
|
FAQ
Sept 20, 2011 6:51:05 GMT 7
Post by spaceyone on Sept 20, 2011 6:51:05 GMT 7
Rent assistance is not automatic. Meaning, you have to fill in a separate form for it, signed by your real estate or landlord, and claim it. If one does not claim for it, C/L would assume or be advised that you pay less than $80 per week rent, and therefore do not qualify for rent assistance, or are not paying any rent at all.
For the 7 months that I was basically homeless, I did not claim rent assistance. I was paying board to the people I stayed with, but that does not qualify as rent, and so I did not claim assistance. My Newstart and later DSP payments were not stopped because I was not paying rent.
In fact, C/L must be becoming more and more used to people not having a permanent home, and therefore no longer claiming rent assistance, as they drive more and more people onto the streets.
|
|
|
FAQ
Sept 20, 2011 7:55:17 GMT 7
Post by Banjo on Sept 20, 2011 7:55:17 GMT 7
I would assume that most of our members do not claim rent assistance. Instead it is one of the allowances our members relieve the government from having to pay to them, by living somewhere cheap enough that it would not qualify anyway. The 13 week loophole was a game of pretended residence, allowed by both parties. Claiming for having to financially maintain a property here, while not actually living in Australia, would be unlawful and we would not promote nor advise it. I've never personally claimed rent allowance for precisely this reason, it would certainly strengthen residency claims if Centrelink were paying it though. The 13 week portability clause is being seen as a loophole by Minister Macklin and Centrelink but in the eyes of regular travellers it is seen as an integral part of the law. This is not a "rule", it is written into the act; the "rules" on residency are made up by Centrelink. I have never tested the 13 week law for precisely this reason... it is the law. I believe that the reason that appeals are being won at SSAT and lower levels is that Centrelink don't want the "rules" tested in the courts.
|
|
|
FAQ
Sept 20, 2011 10:25:24 GMT 7
Post by zorro1 on Sept 20, 2011 10:25:24 GMT 7
"The 13 week loophole was a game of pretended residence, allowed by both parties. Claiming for having to financially maintain a property here, while not actually living in Australia, would be unlawful and we would not promote nor advise it". but is not living in Australia and claiming DSP unlawful?
|
|
|
FAQ
Sept 20, 2011 11:02:17 GMT 7
Post by spaceyone on Sept 20, 2011 11:02:17 GMT 7
Well, I don't think it was unlawful previously. When the government wanted to make it unlawful, Banjo and Banker created this group to fight those proposed laws.
Members of this group who are already living overseas, do not want to break a law. But they also do not want to return home to a life of financial stress and humiliation, when they can afford to live a reasonable life in a 'third world country'. Also, they do not want to loose their DSP when they are too sick to hold down a job, and do not have a retirement fund in place.
Which again, is why we tried to protest and prevent the new laws being passed.
|
|
|
FAQ
Sept 20, 2011 11:16:52 GMT 7
Post by zorro1 on Sept 20, 2011 11:16:52 GMT 7
love your work spacey Good to be able to bounce around ideas in here
|
|
|
FAQ
Sept 20, 2011 11:20:55 GMT 7
Post by spaceyone on Sept 20, 2011 11:20:55 GMT 7
I am guessing that your real questions is: if I told C/L that I reside in Sydney, but then only fly into and back out of Perth, will C/L make the connection that the address in Sydney is not really being used.
My guessed answer to that would be, yes, eventually they would question that.
However, are you in receipt of rent assistance? If you are receiving around $700 per fortnight, you are not. If you are receiving over $800 then you are.
If you did not apply for it, then you would not be receiving it. If you are not receiving it, then it would not matter so much which city you fly into and out of.
You can be homeless, and moving between places, and just have an address for their records which your mail goes to, without C/L having any issues with it. As long as no rent assistance is being claimed for that address.
|
|
|
FAQ
Sept 20, 2011 13:01:58 GMT 7
Post by zorro1 on Sept 20, 2011 13:01:58 GMT 7
The best way for me to describe my situation is as a new recipient I don't want to break any laws. If it were illegal and against the law to be a frequent traveler and also receive rent assistance then I would certainly not claim rent assistance if I decide to travel often. I don't know if I get it, they certainly haven't sent anything in the mail regarding a land lord statement. I will check to see how much is my payment. My frequent questions here are for the sole purpose of education regarding c/l laws. Rest assured I am fully disclosed to c/l and 100% legal
|
|
|
FAQ
Sept 20, 2011 14:34:48 GMT 7
Post by Banjo on Sept 20, 2011 14:34:48 GMT 7
I'm sure they wouldn't be paying it without a regular confirmation of rent payment.
|
|
|
FAQ
Sept 20, 2011 20:37:48 GMT 7
Post by spaceyone on Sept 20, 2011 20:37:48 GMT 7
If they haven't asked for proof of rent payment, then I would think you aren't getting it, Zorro. If you told them that you were staying with your son, they would not have offered it, as paying board (and sometimes even rent) to family members, does not qualify for rent assistance.
It is because you have been 100% honest with them about your lack of permanent roots here in the past few years, that I worry for you about the residency reviews. However, I never advise deceiving them either and it had to be done that way.
Its a catch 22 issue. If you did maintain a rental property here, and travelled frequently o/s, they would wonder how you could afford that on a pension. If you don't have a permanent property here, and are overseas often, you are then in danger of loosing that pension.
In your case though, you might have already been deemed ill enough to be allowed to be overseas, as at July 2012, and without the 13 week rule in place. A person who qualifies for this, would not be able to claim rent assistance for money paid in a different country. You wouldn't have the issue then, as you would be able to give your o/s address as being the place you are at most often.
It would be worth reading your Job Capacity Assessment to see what rating you did achieve in C/L's eyes, and checking what restrictions it might free you of, or have attached to it.
|
|
|
FAQ
Sept 21, 2011 16:22:07 GMT 7
Post by zorro1 on Sept 21, 2011 16:22:07 GMT 7
Having researched the the new residency review they only state that the ongoing residency requirement is now in place and affects people who spend a significant amount of time overseas in 13 week periods.
It appears they are focusing on frequent flyers only. I would imagine they will start with those that have years away in 13 week turn arounds.
I dont know if it will be a great problem for those with strong family ties and all of their bills in the home address. Owning a property in oz would rate highly.
The first level of defense would be, Im away because I can be and its lawful.... which it is. Wonder how C/L would reply to that!
|
|
|
FAQ
Sept 21, 2011 16:30:06 GMT 7
Post by zorro1 on Sept 21, 2011 16:30:06 GMT 7
Zorro1 On my short trip overseas i ring to say i am back home. I have been advised that they have a link direct to the immigration, and it shows up on your file about the date and time you arrived. So no one can try to say one thing and it has been something else. Same as your bank interest in the bank, they have a link to that too. Who says big brother is not watching. Is this what information you were after Thanks Bedwin yes that was what I was after, sorry I missed your post some how.
|
|
|
FAQ
Sept 21, 2011 17:01:41 GMT 7
Post by rowdy on Sept 21, 2011 17:01:41 GMT 7
Having researched the the new residency review they only state that the ongoing residency requirement is now in place and affects people who spend a significant amount of time overseas in 13 week periods. It appears they are focusing on frequent flyers only. I would imagine they will start with those that have years away in 13 week turn arounds. I dont know if it will be a great problem for those with strong family ties and all of their bills in the home address. Owning a property in oz would rate highly. The first level of defense would be, Im away because I can be and its lawful.... which it is. Wonder how C/L would reply to that! Hello Board, I have been absent for a while, but am back. Banker how is your moggie, and Banjo give me a call. Quote ... "The first level of defense would be, Im away because I can be and its lawful" ... BRILLIANT and I think that sums it up perfectly. Overseas travel frequency and duration is only ONE circumstances that is taken into account. There are MANY factors in determining residence. As I posted before the only changes to the Act that came into effect are the ongoing residence requirements. 13 week portability still applies. Good to be back The Rowdy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FAQ
Sept 21, 2011 17:39:14 GMT 7
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2011 17:39:14 GMT 7
zorro 1 Was not sure if you saw it or not.
|
|
|
FAQ
Sept 21, 2011 18:29:45 GMT 7
Post by Banjo on Sept 21, 2011 18:29:45 GMT 7
Good to see Rowdy back... Good to see Zorro1 and Bedwin pass a hundred posts each, good work lads.
|
|