Decision: The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the order that Centrelink reassess Mr Gouldman's claim for age pension made on 9 April 2025 on the basis that Mr Gouldman was not a member of a couple with [Mr A]. This means the application for review is successful.

SOCIAL SECURITY - Age Pension - member of a couple - shared accommodation - Partner details form not completed - joint investment property and bank account - remainder of financial arrangements separated - separate social lives and household duties - tolerance and support of outside relationships - Centrelink unable to assess age pension claim - decision under review set aside and remitted

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 201(1A) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

1. This review is of a decision by Services Australia - Centrelink (Centrelink) to reject Mr Gouldman's claim for age pension on the basis that he was a member of a couple with [Mr A]. Mr Gouldman and [Mr A] met approximately 16 years ago and have been sharing accommodation in Sydney for the past 10 years.
2. Mr Gouldman lodged a claim for age pension on 9 April 2025. On 12 April 2025, Centrelink decided that Mr Gouldman was a member of a couple with [Mr A] (the MoC decision). On 17 April 2025, Mr Gouldman requested an internal review of the MoC decision).
3. On 14 April 2025, Centrelink requested he complete a Mod P Partner form by 28 April 2025. Mr Gouldman did not complete the form and on 17 July 2025, a Centrelink officer decided to reject his claim for age pension on the basis he had not supplied the information requested (the age pension rejection decision).
4. On 21 July 2025, Mr Gouldman requested an internal review of the age pension rejection decision and on 22 July 2025 an authorised review officer of Centrelink reviewed and affirmed the MoC and the age pension rejection decisions.
5. On 31 July 2025, Mr Gouldman made an application to the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) for an independent review of the Centrelink decisions.
6. The Tribunal hearing was held on 16 September 2025, on which date Mr Gouldman spoke to the Tribunal by MS Teams audio and gave evidence under oath. [Mr A] also spoke separately to the Tribunal by MS Teams audio and gave evidence under oath. At the hearing, the Tribunal had before it documents provided by Centrelink (folios 1 to 190), and Mr Gouldman confirmed he had received a copy of the Centrelink documents.

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act).
2. Section 43 of the Act sets out the qualification requirements for the payment of age pension. Section 55 of the Act provides that an individual's age pension rate is to be calculated in accordance with the Pension Rate Calculator A at the end of section 1064 of the Act. The Pension Rate Calculator requires that an individual's income and assets are considered in determining the rate of pension payable. Point 1064-A1 of the Act provides a Method Statement for working out a person's maximum rate of payment and point 1064-A2 of the Act provides that where a person is a member of a couple, they will be treated as pooling their resources (income and assets) and sharing them on a 50/50 basis. Where a person is a member of a couple, Module E and Module G of the Act require the income and assets of the couple to be considered in order to calculate a person's rate of payment.
3. Paragraph 4(2)(b) of the Act provides that a person is a member of a couple if:

(i) the person has a relationship with another person, whether of the same sex or a different sex (in this paragraph called the partner);

(ii) the person is not legally married to the partner;

(iii) the relationship between the person and the partner is, in the Secretary's opinion (formed as mentioned in subsections (3) and (3A)), a de facto relationship;

(iv) both the person and the partner are over the age of consent applicable in the State or Territory in which they live;

(v) the person and the partner are not within a prohibited relationship.

1. As Mr Gouldman and [Mr A] were not married during the relevant period, they can only be considered a member of a couple if they fulfil the criteria under paragraph 4(2)(b) of the Act.
2. Subsection 4(3) of the Act sets out the criteria for forming an opinion as to whether a person is a member of a couple and provides as follows:

Member of a couple - criteria for forming opinion about relationship

In forming an opinion about the relationship between 2 people for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), subparagraph (2)(aa)(ii) or subparagraph (2)(b)(iii),the Secretary is to have regard to all the circumstances of the relationship including, in particular, the following matters:

(i) any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets and any joint liabilities; and

(ii) any significant pooling of financial resources especially in relation to major financial commitments; and

(iii) any legal obligations owed by one person in respect of the other person; and

(iv) the basis of any sharing of day-to-day household expenses;

(i) any joint responsibility for providing care or support of children; and

(iii) the basis on which responsibility for housework is distributed;

(c) the social aspects of the relationship, including:

(i) whether the people hold themselves out as married to, or in a de facto relationship with, each other; and

(ii) the assessment of friends and regular associates of the people about the nature of their relationship; and

(iii) the basis on which the people make plans for, or engage in, join social activities;

(e) the nature of the people's commitment to each other, including:

(ii) the nature of any companionship and emotional support that the people provide to each other; and

(iii) whether the people consider that the relationship is likely to continue indefinitely and

(iv) whether the people see their relationship as a marriage-like relationship or a de facto relationship.

1. For age pension to be paid to an individual, section 37 of the Administration Act provides that the person must be eligible for the payment and the payment must be payable to them.
2. Division 6 of the Administration Act contains provisions relating to requirements for individuals to provide information, attend the Department or undergo a medical examination in relation to a claim that has been lodged with the Department.
3. Sections 63 of the Administration Act provides that the Department can compel an individual to provide further information or confirmations to the Department.
4. Subsection 64(1) of the Administration Act provides that:

(a) a person is receiving, or has made a claim for, a social security payment; and

(b) the Secretary notifies the person under subsection 63(2), (2AB) or (4); and

(c) the requirement in the notice is reasonable; and

(d) the person does not comply with the requirement; and

(e) except if the person is receiving, or has made a claim for, a participation payment--the Secretary is not satisfied that the person had a reasonable excuse for not complying with the requirement; and

(f) the Secretary is satisfied that it is reasonable for this subsection to apply to the person;

the payment that the person is receiving or has claimed is not payable.

1. Subsections 107(1) and (2) of the Administration Act provides for the date of effect of a favourable determination following the decision to reject a person's claim for a social security payment. These subsections provide that:

(1) Subject to subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5), a determination under section 37 takes effect on the day on which the determination is made or on such earlier or later day as is specified in the determination.

(a) a decision (the original decision) is made rejecting a person's claim for a social security payment or a concession card; and

(b) the person is given a notice informing him or her of the original decision; and

(c) within 13 weeks after the notice is given, the person applies to the Secretary, under section 129, for review of the original decision; and

(d) a decision that the claim be granted is made as a result of the application for review;

the determination embodying the last-mentioned decision takes effect on the day on which the determination embodying the original decision took effect.

1. The legal issues which arise in this case are:
   • whether Mr Gouldman should be assessed as being a member of a couple for the purposes of determining his eligibility for age pension.
   • whether Mr Gouldman's claim for age pension was correctly rejected on the basis that he had not provided a completed Mod P Partner details form about [Mr A] by the required date; and if not
   • what is the date of effect of any favourable determination in relation to Mr Gouldman's claim for age pension?

Issue 1 - Whether Mr Gouldman should be assessed as being a member of a couple for the purposes of determining his eligibility for age pension.

1. In determining this question, the Tribunal must consider all the circumstances of the case and make an objective assessment based on the evidence. In VBH and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2006] AATA 1 the Tribunal's predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT), stated (at [94]):

The s 4(3) criteria does have some subjective components but it is overwhelmingly objective in nature and in construct. Additionally, the opinion formed about the relationship is not that of the parties to it, but the regard the Secretary is to have to its circumstances, including the criteria at (3). The opinion formed will be based on the whole of the circumstances of the relationship, viewed objectively.

1. The subjective views of the parties may also be relevant. In the matter of Boskoski and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2014] AATA 915, at [63], the AAT stated:

In considering the various criteria set out in subsection 4(3) it is necessary to take an objective view of the facts. However, the subjective views of the parties may be relevant in considering aspects of the relationship, such as the commitment of each party to the other.

1. In Staunton-Smith v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1991] FCA 513; (1991) 32 FCR 164, O'Loughlin J stated (at [20]):

It is not suggested that this list is exhaustive nor will each of these subjects fall to be considered in every case. It must also be emphasised that a particular answer to a single subject will rarely, if ever, supply a final solution. The responsibility of the fact­ finding Tribunal is to have regard to all the material facts of each case, treating the matters listed above only as indicators. The Tribunal will make its determination whether a particular man and woman are or are not living separately and apart only after assessing the totality of the evidence and other material that is before it.

1. In Sperring; Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1050, the AAT stated (at [70]):

... being a member of a couple involves a lot more than sharing a common address. However, all the criteria need not be satisfied. In fact, one may satisfy few of them but still be considered to be a member of a couple. All of the circumstances need to be considered. Each matter is different.

1. The AAT observed in Day and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2009] AATA 415, if the person's evidence is inconsistent with objective or independent evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal should generally place greater reliance on that objective/independent evidence.

1. Mr Gouldman told the Tribunal that [Mr A] is the lessor of an apartment in [Suburb 1] they have been living at since March 2022. Mr Gouldman was originally from Sydney but moved to Melbourne in 1996 for a job. He became redundant and was offered a job in [occupation 1] at [Employer 1] in Sydney so moved back there in 2007. He met [Mr A] a couple of years after that. Around 2015, he was renting a flat in [Suburb 2] when his flatmate suddenly decided to leave. Mr Gouldman couldn't afford to pay the entire rent by himself so he asked [Mr A] if he'd like to move in as he had heard [Mr A] was having difficulties with his flatmates. [Mr A] moved into the [Suburb 2] apartment where they stayed for 7 years, and they then decided to move to [Suburb 1] as it was close to [Employer 1] and to the office where [Mr A] works as [an occupation 2]. At the [Suburb 1] apartment, they each have a bedroom and a bathroom and each pays half of the rent. Mr Gouldman said they split the household bills 50:50. As [Mr A] [is] better suited to keeping track of the bills. At the end of every month, he tells Mr Gouldman what he owes for utilities and the internet and Mr Gouldman pays him.
2. About 5 years ago, Mr Gouldman started to get worried about Sydney real estate prices and was concerned about how he would keep paying a high rental once he had retired. [Mr A] has always had a series of partners throughout the time they've been sharing accommodation but was never in a relationship with anyone long enough to contemplate buying property with them. Mr Gouldman had been thinking of purchasing an investment property but realised he did not have enough money to do this by himself. His [occupation 1] job was not that well paid and while [Mr A] was on a higher salary, buying a property by himself and meeting the mortgage would have been a bit of a stretch. They decided to buy an investment property together to give them both a "safety net" for the future and bought an apartment in [Suburb 3] about 5 years ago. The mortgage is split 60:40 between [Mr A] and Mr Gouldman as [Mr A] has more money. [Mr A] receives 60% of the rent and Mr Gouldman 40%. [Mr A] suggested it would be efficient to set up a joint banking account to handle incomings and outgoings for the investment property. Mr Gouldman's Centrelink materials include bank account statements from their [Bank 1] joint account. It discloses payments into the account from a Sydney real estate agent for the investment property and payments out to [Mr A] and Mr Gouldman which reflect the 60:40 split. The Tribunal noted that the balance on the account reverted to a zero amount at the end of each month. Mr Gouldman explained that this is how the account is intended to operate: it functions to receive the rental payments and to pay those rental amounts out to himself and [Mr A] according to their entitlement. Mr Gouldman confirmed that apart from the joint bank account for the investment property, their financial affairs are completely separate.
3. In relation to household expenses, Mr Gouldman says that when they first started sharing accommodation, [Mr A] had previously been in furnished accommodation so he didn't have a lot of his own furniture while Mr Gouldman was living in a flat that already had a fridge and the usual household items. Since then, [Mr A] bought his own bedroom furniture and each has made purchases of items they use. For instance, Mr Gouldman bought a large TV as he likes to watch television whereas [Mr A] bought a sound system as he's more into music. In terms of shopping, they tend to buy most of their own groceries as they have different food preferences - [Mr A] drinks oat milk whereas Mr Gouldman prefers cow's milk. Each of them will buy the shared household items such as laundry powder and toilet paper on an as needs basis. Mr Gouldman has a car which he uses exclusively and [Mr A] walks into work or otherwise gets around on the bus, light rail or an Uber.
4. Mr Gouldman had previously nominated [Mr A] as a beneficiary for his superannuation but says he has recently changed that nomination to his estate on the advice of his financial adviser. He told the Tribunal he has not yet made a will but intends to do so before the end of the year. Making a will has been one of the things he had been putting off until he retired. At the beginning of the year, he started a new relationship and that has been taking up a lot of his time.
5. In his evidence [Mr A] said that he and Mr Gouldman started talking about getting an investment property before COVID-19. He described the Sydney housing market as "out of control" and described the decision to purchase the investment property together as a "transactional arrangement" to give each of them some income from the property, a toehold into the property market and a safety net in case something happened to either of them so that they didn't end up "on the streets". He confirmed he had not made a will. In response to the Tribunal's question, [Mr A] confirmed that they split expenses for the [Suburb 1] apartment equally.
6. The Tribunal noted that Mr Gouldman and [Mr A] have a shared financial asset by way of the investment property and that they operate a joint bank account to deal with transactions concerning the property. However, the Tribunal noted their motivation in purchasing the property was to future proof them against the vagaries of the Sydney property market and not to build a future together which is more usually the motivation for couples who purchase property together. It is well known that finding a rental in Sydney is difficult and that rents are extremely high. It is also well known that Sydney property prices are the steepest in the country and the housing crisis which has gripped Australia is most keenly felt in Sydney. It is becoming increasingly common for people who are not members of a couple, whether they be friends or siblings, to throw their lot in together to buy a property as it would be impossible for them to do so on their own. The Tribunal considers that Mr Gouldman and [Mr A's] decision to purchase the investment property was a rational and strategic response to the challenges of the Sydney property market, affording them with some housing security into the future. The Tribunal noted that the rest of their financial arrangements are kept separate. They don't have joint private health insurance for example. Although [Mr A] has always earned more than Mr Gouldman, the household expenses have always been split 50:50 whereas the Tribunal noted in a couple where there is a different earning capacity, it is usual for the higher earning member to shoulder more of the financial load.
7. Weighing up the evidence of Mr Gouldman and [Mr A's] financial arrangement, the Tribunal tends to the view that they are not members of a couple but rather long-term housemates. The Tribunal concludes that on this criterion they are not members of a couple.

1. Mr Gouldman and [Mr A] have their own bedroom and a bathroom each. Mr Gouldman explained that each of them cleans their own areas of the apartment. [Mr A] bought a robovacuum a while ago which largely takes care of the living room which they share. Mr Gouldman said he cooks for himself when he is home. [Mr A] works late most nights but if he's around at dinner time, they will eat together. They don't see each other much on the weekends as their social lives are separate. [Mr A] said if they run into each other in the apartment, they will chat about their days but they don't make arrangements to catch up or be at home together. [Mr A] said that he is careful to give Mr Gouldman and his new partner time and space on their own so he'll tend to be out for most of the weekend.
2. The evidence of their household given separately by Mr Gouldman and [Mr A] presents a consistent picture of a relaxed well-functioning flat sharing arrangement between 2 people who have known each other a long time. In the Tribunal's view, it makes sense for Mr Gouldman and [Mr A] to share a meal when they happen to find themselves at home together but the Tribunal accepted their evidence that their paths only cross by happenstance and not by arrangement as would usually be the case where 2 people living together were members of a couple. The Tribunal concludes that the evidence weighs in favour of a finding that Mr Gouldman and [Mr A] are not members of a couple.

1. [Mr A] told the Tribunal he and Mr Gouldman met at a bar in [Location 1] in 2009, had casual sex and quickly worked out they were not compatible as partners. Mr Gouldman described [Mr A] as liking "fine dining and theatre" while Mr Gouldman prefers TV and drinking with friends at the pub. There is a 19-year age difference between them. Mr Gouldman said [Mr A's] group of friends are around the younger man's age and have all worked in [Country 1] together at some time which is their point of connection. He could not recall the last time he met up with [Mr A] and his friends.
2. Mr Gouldman said his friends do not consider him and [Mr A] to be a couple. Mr Gouldman's Centrelink materials include written submissions with a final statement completed and signed by [Ms B] JP dated 15 April 2025 which states" I, [Ms B], hereby confirm that I have known Mr Gouldman for 36 years and [Mr A] for over 15 years. I can confirm that they have a purely platonic relationship. They have not been in a relationship." Mr Gouldman said [Ms B] was an old friend of his from Sydney whom he met up with again when he returned to Sydney in 2007 and they generally see each other every couple of weeks.
3. Mr Gouldman told the Tribunal he organises his own social life independently of [Mr A] and vice versa, which was confirmed by [Mr A] in his evidence. Mr Gouldman said he generally spends Christmas with his sister in Brisbane while [Mr A] said he doesn't celebrate Christmas and tends to be working as [his employer] is open that day.
4. On balance, the Tribunal finds this criterion weighs towards Mr Gouldman and [Mr A] not being members of a couple. Their lives are not intertwined, their social lives are separate and no one in their social or familial circle regards them as being a member of a couple.

1. As noted, [Mr A] told the Tribunal they met in a bar in [Location 1] and had casual sex which never developed into a sexual relationship. In clarifying this point, Mr Gouldman told the Tribunal that "in the gay scene, it's very common to sleep with someone and then decide to be friends" because there is no ongoing compatibility. They did not decide to share accommodation until 6 years later and that decision was purely prompted by each of them needing to find someone they trusted to share the rent. The Tribunal accepts that there was no continuing sexual relationship between the parties apart from when they first met and finds accordingly.
2. [Mr A] told the Tribunal he has had a succession of partners over the past 10 years with each relationship ending after about 2 years. During that time, his partners would stay over at the [Suburb 1] apartment. Mr Gouldman told the Tribunal he started dating a man named [Mr C] at the beginning of the year and the relationship is continuing in a promising way. Mr Gouldman and [Mr C] spend about 4 nights a week together. The Tribunal has concluded that [Mr A] and Mr Gouldman are well aware of each other's sexual relationships and there are no signs of jealousy or intolerance that might be expected of someone who had the slightest belief that the other person was meant to be in a relationship with them. The evidence before the Tribunal is that [Mr A] and Mr Gouldman have each supported the relationships the other has entered into in during the 10 years they have been sharing accommodation. Such tolerance and support of outside relationships is generally not an indicium of 2 people being members of the same couple.
3. The Tribunal finds that in regard to this criterion, it weighs in favour of a finding that they are not members of a couple.

1. It is not in dispute that Mr Gouldman and [Mr A] have shared accommodation for 10 years and each acknowledges that the living arrangement has given them certainty and security. [Mr A] described the "fear factor" when he thought about sharing with unknown people as he had had some "horrible" accommodation-sharing experiences in the past. [Mr A] told the Tribunal he has asked Mr Gouldman if he is going to move out with [Mr C]. In response to the Tribunal's question, Mr Gouldman explained that he is not sure how this relationship will develop in the long term, but he has certainly thought about whether he and [Mr C] might move in together.
2. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Gouldman and [Mr A] have joined forces to deal with Sydney property prices by buying an investment property together and that this arrangement may well survive their sharing of accommodation. Their conduct in buying the investment property together, in the Tribunal's view is motivated by self-interest and a recognition of mutual benefit rather than being an expression of a lifelong commitment to each other.
3. In response to the Tribunal's question about whether they provide emotional support to each other, Mr Gouldman says he generally talks about issues, such as his feelings on being made redundant from his [previous] job to [Mr C], his friends or [Ms B] rather than to [Mr A]. In his turn, [Mr A] said he and Mr Gouldman don't discuss "emotional issues". It is not in dispute that Mr Gouldman and [Mr A] do not consider themselves to be in a de facto relationship and have not identified anyone from their separate circles of friends and family who does. The Tribunal has concluded the evidence before it in relation to this criterion weighs in favour of a finding that Mr Gouldman and [Mr A] are not members of a couple.

1. As noted above, in determining whether a person is a 'member of a couple,' it is well established that decision makers must consider all the criteria set out in subsection 4(3) of the Act, as well as any other relevant circumstances. The Tribunal is required to reach an objective assessment of the relationship. Therefore, even in cases where the person or persons consider themselves as not being in a de facto relationship, such as this one, the Tribunal making its own assessment of the evidence may conclude differently because of the factors the Tribunal needs to consider in applying the social security law.
2. There are a number of factors in this application that incline towards the position, which was taken by Centrelink, that Mr Gouldman and [Mr A] are linked emotionally and financially and are committed to each other and therefore should be considered as being in a de facto relationship. Some aspects of the evidence could support that position. The evidence of Mr Gouldman and [Mr A], for instance, presented a consistent picture of their living arrangements offering both men certainty and security. They had casual sex when they first met, they have lived together for 10 years in 3 different rental properties, they eat the odd meal together. They share a mortgage on an investment property. However, in the Tribunal's view, the preponderance of the evidence supports a conclusion that Mr Gouldman and [Mr A] have been sharing accommodation for a number of years as friends and their "relationship" cannot be characterised as a de facto relationship such that they should be considered "members of a couple." This evidence includes the fact their finances are largely separate, household bills are split 50:50, there has been no sexual relationship between the 2 men apart from an initial encounter, that Mr Gouldman is involved in another relationship of which [Mr A] is fully aware, that he might move in with [Mr C] at some point, their daily routines and whereabouts are largely unknown to each other and their social lives and family relationships do not overlap. Having considered the relevant statutory criteria in subsection 4(3) of the Act, the Tribunal finds that the weight of evidence in relation to these criteria indicates that Mr Gouldman and [Mr A] have never been in a de facto relationship and are not currently in a de facto relationship. They are simply 2 gay men who share an apartment. For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Gouldman is not a member of a couple with [Mr A] and finds accordingly.

Issue 2 - Whether Mr Gouldman's claim for age pension was correctly rejected on the basis that he had not provided a completed Mod P Partner details form about [Mr A] by the required date.

1. The Tribunal noted that Mr Gouldman lodged his claim for age pension on 9 April 2025 and Centrelink decided on 12 April 2025 that Mr Gouldman was a member of a couple and forwarded him a Mod P Partner details form on 14 April 2025 to be completed by 28 April 2025 in reliance on section 63 of the Administration Act. Mr Gouldman did not complete the Mod P form by the due date. Centrelink decided to reject his claim on 17 July 2025 on the basis that he had not returned the completed Mod P form in reliance on section 64 of the Administration Act which provides for a series of cumulative requirements to be satisfied in order to be valid.
2. Taking each of these cumulative requirements in turn, the Tribunal considers that the requirements of paragraphs 64(1)(a) and 64(1)(b) of the Administration Act are made out. The Tribunal also considers the requirement in the notice was reasonable as required under paragraph 64(1)(c) of the Administration Act as it directly bore on the payability of his age pension. Similarly, paragraph 64(1)(d) of the Administration Act is satisfied as Mr Gouldman did not complete and return the Mod P form as is not in contention. Paragraph 64(1)(e) requires that the Secretary (or Tribunal) is not satisfied that the person had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the requirement. Mr Gouldman said he did not complete the Mod P form because [Mr A] was not his partner and to complete the form would be to concede that he was in a relationship with [Mr A]. The Tribunal accepts there is some merit in this argument as it notes there is no box in the Mod P form he could have checked to say he does not have a partner. However, his failure to complete the form meant that Centrelink was unable to assess whether age pension was payable to him as required under section 37 of the Administration Act. The Tribunal concludes that paragraph 64(1)(e) has been made out.
3. Paragraph 64(1)(f) of the Administration Act requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that it is reasonable for this subsection to apply to the person. Although the Tribunal considers it was reasonable to require Mr Gouldman to complete the Mod P form back in April 2025, it is no longer reasonable for subsection 64(1) of the Administration Act to continue to apply because of the Tribunal's decision in this review that Mr Gouldman is not a member of a couple with [Mr A]. In this regard, the Tribunal acknowledges that the original decision maker and the authorised review officer did not have the benefit of all the evidence the Tribunal had before it, especially the oral evidence of [Mr A]. This evidence has enabled the Tribunal to conclude that Mr Gouldman is not a member of a couple with [Mr A]. On the basis of this finding, the Tribunal is accordingly not satisfied that it is reasonable for subsection 64(1) to apply to Mr Gouldman. Centrelink's decision to reject Mr Gouldman's claim for age pension under subsection 64(1) of the Administration Act must be set aside.

Issue 3 - What is the date of effect of any favourable determination in relation to Mr Gouldman's claim for age pension?

1. For the above reasons, the Tribunal will set aside the decisions under review and return the matter to Centrelink for reconsideration on the basis that Mr Gouldman is not a member of a couple.
2. Subsection 107(2) of the Administration Act provides that if a decision is made rejecting a person's claim for a social security payment and the person applies for a review of that decision less than 13 weeks after the notice is given, any decision made that the claim be granted as a result of the application for review takes effect on the day on which the determination embodying the original decision took effect.
3. The Tribunal's decision that Mr Gouldman is not a member of a couple with [Mr A] constitutes a favourable determination for the purposes of subsection 107(2) of the Administration Act. The Tribunal documents indicate that on 17 April 2025, Mr Gouldman sought a review of the MoC decision made on 12 April 2025 which is less than 13 weeks after the notice of Centrelink's decision was given. The date of effect of this decision is therefore 9 April 2025, the date of Mr Gouldman's claim and his relevant start date, and any arrears that may become payable to Mr Gouldman are payable from that date.

The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the order that Centrelink reassess Mr Gouldman's claim for age pension made on 9 April 2025 on the basis that Mr Gouldman was not a member of a couple with [Mr A]. This means the application for review is successful.