You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year.
Some jurisdictions only publish a selection of decisions. Identifying details may be removed.
179 items matching your search terms
Overpayment – Appellant living in relationship of the nature of marriage. Outcome: appeal dismissed
Income deduction from Supported Living Payment. Outcome: appeal allowed in part
Hardship assistance. Outcome: appeal dismissed
Overpayment of main benefits due to undeclared income. Outcome: appeal dismissed
Application for temporary additional support: Outcome: appeal dismissed
Recoverable vs Non-recoverable assistance. Outcome: appeal dismissed
New Zealand Superannuation – suspension. Outcome: appeal dismissed
Case stated appeal. Outcome: Chair declines to state case
New Zealand Superannuation – deduction of overseas pension. Outcome: appeal dismissed
Following the hearing the appellant’s advocate has advised that the Ministry’s calculations set out in the Section 12K Report are now accepted and that nothing further is required to be determined by the Authority. Accordingly we accept that the calculation of the Disability Allowance debt of $769.90 and Temporary Additional Support debt of $2,634.79 are correct. The appellant will need to discuss a rate of recovery with the Ministry. The appeal is dismissed. The Ministry are requested to make a submission to the Authority
We are satisfied that the appellant’s pension falls within the definition of a Government Occupational Pension as defined in s 3 of the Social Security Act 1964 and therefore, should not be deducted from his entitlement to New Zealand Superannuation pursuant to s 70 of the Act. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is invited to make submissions on costs within 14 days of the date of this decision.
We are not satisfied that the appellant met the criteria to receive DPB – CSI in the periods she was in receipt of a main benefit between 1990 and 2002. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant may wish to consider whether an approach to the Ministry of Health for funding for her care of XXXX under the ‘parents as caregivers’ initiatives would be appropriate, if she has not already done so.
The appellant says his need to attend the Support Group has been verified by a registered health professional. The decision on whether or not a cost is a disability cost always remains with the Chief Executive. The Ministry have made a number of points relating to the validity of the letter purporting to be from Dr Fran Lowe on 12 October 2015. The Authority acknowledges that there is room to doubt the authenticity of this letter, but for reasons outlined it does not consider that attendance at the men’s church group to be a disability-related cost. It is not therefore necessary to consider the authenticity of Dr Lowe’s letter. The appeal is dismissed.
The appeal as it relates to the rate of Special Benefit payable is dismissed. Costs are reserved.
We are satisfied that the Chief Executive was correct to decline the appellant’s application for portable superannuation in Australia as it is a country with which New Zealand has a reciprocal agreement. The appeal is dismissed.
Section 86(1), at the time relevant to this appeal, provided the Chief Executive with a discretion to take steps to recover a debt. In fact, according to Ministry records the debts have been recovered and the Chief Executive is not required to take any further steps to recover the debt. The appeal is dismissed.
The appeal as it relates to the advance of benefit is dismissed.
The appellant raises the issue of the failure of the Ministry to invoke Article 24 of the reciprocal agreement with Australia. Article 24 relates to settlement of disputes between the competent authorities of New Zealand and Australia. It does not relate to individual disputes between beneficiaries and the competent authorities of either country. The appeal as it relates to the overpayment in respect of the period 20 March to 7 April 2015 is allowed. In all other respects, the appeal is dismissed.
We are not satisfied that the appellant’s failure to apply for assistance was a result of an erroneous action on the part of the Ministry. To the extent that Child Disability Allowance has been backdated to 25 May 2011, the appeal is allowed. In all other respects the appeal is dismissed.
The jurisdiction of this Authority is limited by s 12K of the Social Security Act 1964. This Authority can only consider decisions of the Chief Executive which have been confirmed or varied by a Benefits Review Committee. As a Benefits Review Committee has not considered the issue of Child Disability Allowance we are not able to consider the issue of whether or not Child Disability Allowance should be backdated. It is open to the appellant to specifically request that an out of time backdated review of the Child Disability Allowance be carried out. The appeal as it relates to the backdating of DPB – CSI is dismissed.
Decisions under s 80AA can be made only to the Chief Executive in person. In this case we understand that the Chief Executive has not considered this matter. As a result, the Authority does not have jurisdiction under s 12J of the Social Security Act 1964 to consider making a backdated payment under s 80AA. The Authority therefore directs that the Chief Executive consider this matter pursuant to the provisions of s 80AA of the Social Security Act 1964. The Chief Executive is to report to the Authority within three months of the date of this decision on the outcome of his consideration. The appeal is adjourned.
This appeal is adjourned to the June circuit of the Authority in Wellington. If the matters referred to are not resolved by 15 May 2016, then the appellant is to advise the Ministry and the Authority of the outstanding issues by that date and the Ministry are to provide a Section 12K report addressing those issues by 1 June 2016.
To the extent that the Ministry now acknowledge that the debt in relation to supplementary payments recoverable from the appellant is $16,281.34, the appeal is allowed. In all other respects, the appeal is dismissed.
In our view, the Chief Executive was correct to exercise his discretion pursuant to s 74(1)(d) and cancel the appellant's entitlement to Special Benefit. The appeal is dismissed.
Reversed decision to recover the overpayment established. The appeal is allowed.