Trajkov and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2011] AATA 619 (2 September 2011)

Last Updated: 2 September 2011

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 619

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No 2011/1990

GENERAL APPEALS DIVISION		)
	Re		JORDAN TRAJKOV

Applicant

And

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICSE AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

Senior Member Bernard J McCabe

Date 2 September 2011

Place Darwin

Decision

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

..............................................
Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY — benefits and entitlements — aged pension — applicant did not receive payment when requested funds be paid into overseas bank account — no jurisdiction to request account statements or other relevant information — decision affirmed

Social Security Administration Act 1991 (Cth), s 151, s 181

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 43

REASONS FOR DECISION

2 September 2011

Senior Member Bernard J McCabe

1. Mr Jordan Trajkov, the applicant, receives a pension from Centrelink. In April 2009, he visited his Centrelink office and told the manager of his intention to return to his homeland of Macedonia for a visit. He enquired whether it was possible to have his Australian pension paid into a Macedonian bank account instead of his regular ANZ account. He was told this could be done. Mr Trajkov said he understood the first payment into his new account would be made on 30 May 2009. He set off on his journey. However, Mr Trajkov says the money was not paid into his nominated account at the Commercial Bank in Macedonia on 30 May. After contacting the Australian embassy in Belgrade, payment to the Macedonian account commenced in July 2009. Mr Trajkov wants to know what happened to the payments that were supposed to be made between 30 April 2009 (the date of the last payment that he expected to receive into his ANZ account) and 15 July 2009 (the date of the first payment made into his Macedonian bank account).
2. Mr Hamilton, for Centrelink, had a simple explanation in respect of the payments made up until 11 June 2009, they continued to be made into Mr Trajkov’s ANZ account in Australia. The Centrelink file notes indicate that Mr Trajkov had not supplied the account information in respect of his Macedonian account until that date. Mr Trajkov said in his evidence that he provided the information before he left at the end of May, so there appears to have been a misunderstanding. But what of the payments made after 11 June 2009 through 15 July 2009?
3. Centrelink records show those payments were made to Mr Trajkov’s nominated account at the Commercial Bank in Macedonia. The process by which payments are made to overseas accounts is a complex one. Mr Hamilton explained that Centrelink issues instructions to the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank converts the payments to be made overseas into the appropriate foreign currency. (In the case of payments made to Mr Trajkov, the currency was $US.) Those payments are then remitted by the Reserve Bank, not by Centrelink, to Citibank in Dublin. Where the payments are made by wire transfer, the transfer is actually made by Citibank’s Buffalo branch. I was told the Buffalo branch would have handled the payment to the Commercial Bank.
4. Mr Trajkov has been asked on a number of occasions to produce his bank statements from the Commercial Bank so his claim can be verified. He has produced a passbook account that shows a number of transactions, but those records do not refer to the period between 11 June 2009 and 15 July 2009. A translation of those documents suggests the passbook produced relates to a different account that was not opened until some time later.
5. Mr Trajkov says he wrote to the Commercial Bank asking for statements covering the period in question but he has heard nothing. He wants Centrelink or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) to obtain the relevant information.
6. Mr Hamilton says the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. He argued that this is a case dealing with the manner in which payments are made. The manner in which payments are made cannot be reviewed by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“the SSAT”), according to s 151(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1991 (Cth) (“the Act”). If the SSAT was unable to review the matter, by implication, the Tribunal cannot review it either, since the Tribunal’s power of review is limited by s 181 of the Act to matters that are reviewed by the SSAT.
7. Even if I accepted the Tribunal does have jurisdiction, there is a practical question over what can be done. The Tribunal’s power, under s 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), is limited to affirming, varying or setting aside a decision. Mr Trajkov is asking the Tribunal to obtain information that he has been unable to obtain himself. The Tribunal (and Centrelink, for that matter) does not have the power to require the Commercial Bank to provide information. I assume the Commercial Bank would (quite properly) refuse to provide a customer’s information to Australian authorities. Mr Trajkov suggests that, as an alternative, a request might be made of Citibank, which appears to have handled the payments under an arrangement with the Reserve Bank. But Citibank’s Dublin and Buffalo branches are also outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. I suppose Centrelink might request assistance from the Reserve Bank in its capacity as one of the Reserve Bank’s customers. The Reserve Bank might, as a Citibank customer, be able to request information from Citibank about the payments made into Mr Trajkov’s account. It would be a good thing if that were done. However, I cannot order Centrelink or the Reserve Bank to make those enquiries.
8. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter, given it relates to the manner in which a payment was made. But even if the Tribunal did have jurisdiction to hear the case, I could not do anything other than affirm the decision under review since the evidence available suggests that payments were made to Mr Trajkov. I note Mr Trajkov says he did not receive all of those payments. I accept it is possible payments went astray in the course of transmission through the international banking system. Unfortunately for Mr Trajkov, I do not have any evidence from the Commercial Bank, the Reserve Bank or the various emanations of Citibank that would enable me to reach a view on that point.
9. It would be best if Mr Trajkov persisted in his attempts to obtain statements from the Commercial Bank. Since he is the customer, those requests would have to come from him. The Australian authorities cannot intervene with the Macedonian authorities on his behalf. If statements are forthcoming, they can be taken to Centrelink and something may be done. It is also possible that Centrelink might make inquiries through the Reserve Bank. I encourage it to do so to see if any light can be shed on this mystery. Sadly, however, it is a mystery that the Tribunal cannot resolve on its own.

I certify that the 9 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Bernard J McCabe

Signed: .....................................................................................

Associate

Date of Hearing 24 August 2011

Date of Decision 2 September 2011

Applicant Self-Represented

Advocate for the Respondent B Hamilton, Centrelink Program Litigation and Review Branch