Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 201(1A) - 201(1B) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

SOCIAL SECURITY - Date of effect of rate increase - decision under review affirmed

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1. Ms VSXN received disability support pension (DSP). Prior to 16 September 2024 she received the rate of DSP applicable to a person who is a member of a couple.
2. On 16 September 2024, Ms VSXN lodged a form with Centrelink stating that she was separated (separated under one roof) and had been 'from March'. A further form was lodged on 26 September 2024 stating the separation date was 18 February 2024. On 24 September 2024, Ms VSXN is documented to have told Centrelink in a conversation that she separated in May 2024.
3. On 24 September 2024, Centrelink decided that Ms VSXN's rate of DSP was to be calculated on the basis that she was single with effect from 16 September 2024. Although that is the operative decision under the social security law, in the course of reaching that decision, the decision maker accepted that Ms VSXN was separated from 18 February 2024.
4. Ms VSXN was dissatisfied with that decision and requested arrears of DSP for the period prior to 16 September 2024.
5. On 28 November 2024, an authorised review officer affirmed Centrelink's decision, being unable to find any evidence that Ms VSXN had notified Centrelink of the change to her relationship circumstances prior to 16 September 2024.
6. Ms VSXN applied to the Tribunal for review on 4 December 2024. The decision was affirmed by the Tribunal on 19 May 2025.
7. In doing so, the Tribunal noted Ms VSXN's evidence that she had called Centrelink on 8 January 2024 and 13 January 2024, and again on about 16 February 2024 and then perhaps a couple more times seeking the necessary forms to notify of her change in circumstances, but the forms had never been received. The Tribunal examined records of access to Ms VSXN's Centrelink record, including by Centrelink staff and by Ms VSXN herself via Centrelink's app, but found these records did not corroborate Ms VSXN's evidence that she had contacted Centrelink in early January 2024 to advise that she had separated, or at any other time prior to the lodgement of the first form.
8. The Tribunal found therefore that the social security law permitted an increase to Ms VSXN's rate of DSP only from the date Centrelink was first notified of the change to her circumstances, being 16 September 2024.
9. Ms VSXN applied for social services second review on 21 May 2025.

1. The social security law regulates from when an increase to a person's rate of social security will take effect.
2. Section 78 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act) permits the Secretary to increase the rate of a person's payment if it is paid at a rate less than the person's correct entitlement. However, relevantly, the date of the effect of an increase under section 78 is determined by subsection 110(1) of the Administration Act.
3. Subsection 110(1) of the Administration Act applies where favourable determination (such as a rate increase) is made following a person having informed the Department of a change of circumstances. It provides that the date of the effect of a favourable determination is the day on which the person informs Centrelink, or the day on which the event or change occurs, whichever is the later.
4. The Secretary has found that Ms VSXN was no longer a member of a couple for social security purposes from 18 February 2024, and I am not asked to revisit that finding. The remaining issue for me to decide therefore is when Centrelink was first notified of that change of circumstances.
5. Ms VSXN's case is that she notified Centrelink prior to when the form as lodged on 16 September 2024. In her evidence to the Tribunal, Ms VSXN was adamant that she had been in contact with Centrelink multiple times throughout January and perhaps February 2024 to advise of her separation and to request the applicable forms to be sent to her. Ms VSXN said that Centrelink staff had indicated that the forms would be sent or had been sent, but the forms never arrived. Ms VSXN said that she had offered to go to Centrelink to pick up the forms but had been told this was unnecessary. Ms VSXN asks that she be paid arrears from February 2024 in these circumstances.
6. The Secretary's position is that Ms VSXN's evidence is uncorroborated by Centrelink's records, and indeed there is no objective evidence that supports the contention that Ms VSXN informed Centrelink of her change of circumstances in January or February 2024, or at any time prior to 16 September 2024.
7. In this regard, I have examined the documentary evidence in the Tribunal papers from Ms VSXN's customer record in the form of electronic file notes and documented contacts, and also the records of the 'Customer Record Access Monitor' (CRAM) system that logs access to customer records. The Secretary's submission that there is no corroborative or objective evidence of Ms VSXN's contact with Centrelink regarding a change of circumstances of this nature is consistent with my own examination of the records. Nor is there any corroborative evidence from which it might be reasonably inferred that relevant contact was made.
8. I note that Centrelink's records do establish that Ms VSXN was in contact with Centrelink on a number of occasions, usually via "WEB" in relation to other matters such as claiming advance payments, but these records do not support Ms VSXN's evidence that she was informing Centrelink of her separation or requesting forms to be sent to her. The CRAM records are not consistent with Ms VSXN's record being accessed by Centrelink officers to either arrange forms to be sent to her or to follow up why forms were not sent.
9. While I note that Ms VSXN is adamant in her evidence, I am not satisfied to accept that she contacted Centrelink and notified of her changes of circumstances prior to 16 September 2024 in the absence of any corroboration. Furthermore, records detailing contact about matters other than her change of circumstances are present. It is unlikely in my view that records would have been created in relation to Ms VSXN's contact in relation to other aspects of her affairs, but no records created in relation to the asserted contacts about the change to her relationship circumstances, particularly when Ms VSXN says that there were multiple such contacts.
10. I am not satisfied Ms VSXN informed Centrelink of a change to her relationship circumstances in January or February 2024, and I am satisfied that the first time Centrelink was made aware if the change of circumstances that would require the increase to her rate was 16 September 2024 when she lodged the applicable form.
11. The social security law therefore does not permit Ms VSXN to be paid a higher rate of DSP from a date earlier than 16 September 2024, and therefore no further arrears may be paid.