Editors --- "Youth allowance: rent assistance; accommodated independent person rate of payment" [2007] SocSecRpr 19; (2007) 9(2) Social Security Reporter, Article 6

• WADE and SECRETARY TO THE DEST
• The issue
• Background
• The law
• The decision

---

Youth allowance: rent assistance; accommodated independent person rate of payment

WADE and SECRETARY TO THE DEST

(2006/1100)

Decided: 6th March 2007 by C. Ermert

The issue

The key issue in this matter was whether Mr Wade could be said to be an ‘accommodated independent person’, the determination of which affected the appropriate rate of youth allowance (YAL) to which he was entitled, and in turn whether rent assistance (RA) was payable to him. These questions required consideration as to whether Wade was living at the relevant time at the home of his mother.

Background

Wade had been living independently since the age of 17 years, and as a full-time student was granted YAL from 30 January 2004 at the independent rate. At that time he was sharing accommodation with a friend, but during 2005 the two decided to move to better rental accommodation in Beaumaris. Wade’s mother was also renting in Dromana, Victoria, but had decided to move to Byron Bay, Queensland to live (although in fact she later actually moved to live in Canada). It was mutually decided that she would live temporarily with her son and his friend until her own move was finalised. In fact, she shared Wade’s rented accommodation for some six months from November 2005. When Centrelink was advised of this arrangement, it was decided that Wade was no longer entitled to YAL at the independent rate, RA was not payable, and a debt of $470 for the excess YAL and RA paid to Wade in November and December 2005 was raised.

The law

The Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) provides by s.1067G that different rates of payment of YAL are applicable to, inter alia, a person who is an “accommodated independent person”. That term is defined in s.1067B of the Act as a person who:

(a)is independent; and

(b)lives at the home of either or both of his or her parents.

The Tribunal considered the applicability of this section to Wade’s particular circumstances during the period in question.

The Tribunal noted that in Wade’s situation there were three persons sharing the rented property and included as tenants on the lease during the period in question (Wade, his friend, and his mother) so that it could not be said that Wade and his mother had exclusive possession of the unit. As a result, Wade’s mother did not have sufficient legal interest in the property to extend the privileges of occupation (including, for example, shelter and other basic needs, and the potential for lower living costs) to Wade (Reynah Tang and Secretary, Department of Employment, Education and Training AAT 8155, 7 August 1992). In fact, Wade’s mother contributed little to the costs of living in the unit, having sold her possessions in anticipation of her own move to separate accommodation, and there was no evidence that Wade enjoyed any reduced rental or living costs as a result of his mother living at the same unit.

Could Wade be said to have been living at the home of one of his parents, as required by s.1067G of the Act? Affirming the comments made in Kyvelos and Director-General of Social Services (1981) 3 ALN No 77 that the meaning of ‘home’ incorporated the notion of it being,

... the place where the centre of gravity of one’s life is to be found...

The Tribunal concluded that Wade’s mother was essentially in transit from her former home in Dromana to a new one in Byron Bay (or, in fact, to Canada, as later proved to be the case) and that the time of rental with her son could be described as a period of ‘short term transit accommodation’, with no characteristic of permanency. As such Wade’s unit could not be said to be his mother’s ‘home’, and so too Wade did not live at the ‘home’ of one or other of his parents. As such, he was not an ‘accommodated independent person’ within the terms of the Act, and so was entitled to the higher rate of both YAL and RA applicable in such a situation.

The decision

The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and in lieu substituted the decision that Wade was not an accommodated independent person and was entitled to YAL and RA at the independent rate during the period in question.

[P.A.S.]