Correcting errors on Child Support cases 277-09030000

Item

Example

1

Initial contact required with one customer to verify facts

Example 1

A payer calls to report an error in the estimate they provided 2 months ago. It was recorded as $65,000 instead of $56,000. The original estimate notepad confirms the $56,000 figure should have been used.

The error may be corrected as a simple error without the payer lodging an objection as the correct amount has been confirmed. There is no need to make initial contact with any associated customers, such as the payee, to confirm the facts as they would have no knowledge of the payer's estimate amount.

Before processing the decision, contact is required with any associated customers affected by the error correction to explain the decision and the impact on their assessment.

Correcting errors macro summary example: Payer's (name) estimate commencing (start date) has been recorded as $65,000 instead of $56,000.

Example 2

A date of birth (DOB) of a payee's relevant dependent child has been recorded as 7 March 2012 instead of 3 July 2012. Initial customer contact was made with the payee who has confirmed that the correct DOB is 3 July 2012. There is no need to make initial contact with any associated customers due to potential privacy issues. Also, it is unlikely the associated customers would be aware of the facts. Before processing the decision, contact is required with any associated customers affected by the error correction to explain the decision and the impact on their assessment.

Correcting errors macro summary example: Payee's (name) relevant dependent child's (child name) DOB has been recorded as 7 March 2012 instead of 3 July 2012.

2

Initial contact required with both parties to verify facts

A care decision has been keyed in the Cuba care window as 25% care to the payer and 75% care to the payee. However, the care decision notepad documented these care percentages the other way around, that is 75% care to the payer and 25% care to the payee.

It is unclear from the documentation what the correct facts are which means initial customer contact is required. As both customers need to be consulted about a care change of a child, initial customer contact will need to be conducted with both customers to confirm the facts of the care prior to correction.

Correcting errors macro summary example: Child (child's name) care arrangements from (from date) should have been recorded as 75% care to (payer's name) and 25% care to (payee's name), however an error occurred, and these care percentages were incorrectly keyed and accepted the other way around.

3

Initial contact not required with either party to verify facts

Example 1

Where there is a Cuba error with a mixed assessment, initial customer contact to confirm the facts may not be required as the issues are too complex and the customers would not be able to comment on the accuracy of the case details. Contact would be required with all affected customers to explain the decision, impact and their review rights.

Example 2

A FAO care record has been applied in Cuba incorrectly. The correct FAO care details are confirmed with Centrelink. As Child Support is applying a care decision already made in the FAO system, initial customer contact to confirm the facts is not required. Contact would be required with all affected customers to explain the decision, impact and their review rights.

Correcting errors macro summary example: Child (child's name) FAO care arrangements from (from date) of x% to (payee's name) and x% to (payer's name) were applied in error. It has been confirmed with Centrelink that the care arrangements should be x% to (payee's name) and x% to (payer's name).

4

Decision made, yet to be implemented

A payer's relevant dependent child application was accepted in Cuba; however, eligibility was not saved to apply the relevant dependant to the assessment. The payer contacts Child Support a month later to enquire why their relevant dependent child is not included in the assessment.

As Child Support has not given effect to the decision (due to eligibility not yet being saved) this may be treated as a simple error. On investigation, it is clear from the documentation that a decision has already been made to accept the payer's relevant dependant application. There is no need to make initial contact with any associated customers due to potential privacy issues. Also, it is unlikely the associated customers would be aware of the facts. Before processing the decision, contact is required with all customers to explain the decision, impact and their review rights.

Correcting errors macro summary example: A decision was made on (date) to accept the (payer's name) relevant dependent child (child's name) however eligibility was not saved to apply this decision to the assessment.

5

Decision yet to be made

An application for assessment was made for a child by the payee. The registration and the child's care arrangements were pended. Three unsuccessful contact attempts to the payer were made however no letter was issued. The customers were then unlocked in error with the registration and care arrangements still pending. The payee contacts Child Support 6 weeks later to enquire why the child has not been included in the assessment.

As a decision is yet to be made, the error (the failure to make the decision) may be corrected through the error correction process. The customer cannot object because no decision was ever made (usual objection rights would apply to the application of assessment decision once it is made under the correcting errors process).

On investigation, it is clear that all of the application requirements were met by the payee including presumption of parentage for both parties which is recorded in an earlier registration, however the care arrangements have not been verified and the payer has not yet been contacted. Initial customer contact will need to be conducted with the payer to confirm the facts of this application for assessment error correction.

Correcting errors macro summary example: An application for assessment was made on (date) by payee (name) for child (name) against payer (name). This application remained pended as Child Support failed to make a decision on the application.

6

Macro submission sequence of events

An example of a sequence of events:

2 August 2010

M makes an application for an administrative assessment for children A and B.

M is advised that marriage dates are sufficient evidence for presumption of parentage (POP) for child B, however, Child Support require additional information to legally make the presumption that F and M are the parents of A.

Additional POP evidence is requested to be supplied by 16 August 2010.

14 August 2010

A's birth certificate is received and is imaged and indexed in the View Correspondence window. Both F and M are named as A's parents on the birth certificate, however the Service Officer who made the decision was not aware of this evidence at the time they made the initial decision.

18 August 2010

Eligibility is saved without updating the Relationship window with the new POP information. Cuba accepts the application for B but refuses the application for A.

7

Invalid decisions about parentage

An example of a summary of the error:

F applied to add child A to their existing case 123456 with M on 15 May 2019. The case was refused on 31 May 2019 on the basis that POP had not been satisfied for M. On 30 May 2019, M had provided a statutory declaration that he was A’s parent satisfying POP. This evidence was not considered when the application was refused. This means the decision should be declared invalid.

Further this application was refused 16 days after being lodged. Eligibility and presumption of parentage (PoP) for a child support assessment 277-03010030 OB states that an application must not be refused before 28 days after the initial application, unless the customer indicates that POP will not be established.

An example of a PSM authorisation document:

=Error authorisation==============

Case number: 123456

Record #1

Payee's name: Ms F

Record #2

Payer's name: Mr M

=Details=======================

Where is the correcting error submission recorded?

Error submission can be located in the Case window, document dated 30/06/2019 and titled “Invalid decision – AFA refusal”

=Decision=======================

Additional information considered when making the decision:

N/A

No CIF has been issued.

The decision and impact on customers:

The decision to refuse the application of 15/05/2019 is declared invalid for the reasons stated in the submission. A new decision must now be made, with reference to the evidence, after which the application will be accepted.

Accepting the application lodged on 15/05/2019 will not have any impact on the assessment, as the rate will remain in MAR. However, F will be deemed to have taken reasonable maintenance action as of 15/05/2019 and will be paid the correct rate of FTB.

=Authorisation===================

SO6 (PSM) Child Support delegation: The decision is declared to be invalid.

reason(s):

- It followed a denial of procedural fairness (i.e. Child Support has failed to take into account relevant and material evidence).

- details:

Section 29(2)(d) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 states that “the Registrar is to be satisfied that a person is a parent of a child only if the Registrar is satisfied…. that, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, the person has, under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State, Territory or prescribed overseas jurisdiction, executed an instrument acknowledging that the person is a parent of the child, and the instrument has not been annulled or otherwise set aside;”

Prior to the decision being made to refuse the application, Child Support had received a statutory declaration in which M declared that he was a parent of A, and POP was therefore satisfied against M as per section 29(2)(d). On this basis, the application should have been accepted.

Example

Scenario

1

MAR apportionment errors

A parent has a Child Support case involving 3 children. (All of the children are full siblings with the same parents, so they and all the parties involved are part of the one child support case):

• Payer has 20% care of Child A
• NPC 1 has 80% care of Child A and 100% care of Child B
• NPC 2 has 100% care of Child C

The payer is assessed to pay MAR of $420 to each NPC (total annual rate of $840).

This is incorrect as the total annual rate payable in a case assessed at MAR cannot be more than $420 (MAR). It is also incorrect as the payer has at least regular care of at least one child of the case, so MAR does not apply.

2

MAR apportionment errors

A parent has a Child Support case involving 3 children. (All of the children are full siblings with the same parents, so they and all the parties involved are part of the one child support case):

• Receiving parent has 100% care of Child A
• NPC 1 has 100% care of Child B
• NPC 2 has 100% care of Child C

The payer is assessed to pay $0.

This is incorrect as the annual rate should be calculated as $420 (MAR) and then that amount is paid to the carer with the most care or shared between carers with equal most care.

Each payee's care is calculated as:

• Payee's care percentage for all children of the case / total possible care percentage for all children of the case

As all carers have an equal percentage of care of the children (100 / 300 = 33%), and that percentage is the highest percentage of care for all children, each carer is entitled to an equal share of the amount payable. Each NPC should receive $420 (MAR) / 3 carers = $140 each.

3

MAR apportionment errors

A parent has a Child Support case involving 3 children. (All of the children are full siblings with the same parents, so they and all the parties involved are part of the one child support case):

• Receiving parent has 100% care of Child A, 25% care of Child B and 25% care of Child C
• NPC 1 has 75% care of Child B
• NPC 2 has 75% care of Child C

The payer is assessed to pay half MAR of $210 to the payee.

This is incorrect as the annual rate should be calculated as $420 (MAR), and then that amount is paid to the carer with the most care or shared between carers with equal most care.

Each payee's care is calculated as:

• Payee's care percentage for all children of the case / total possible care percentage for all children of the case.

As the payee has the most care ((100 + 25 +25) / 300 = 50%, compared to 75 / 300 = 25% for each of the NPCs), the payee should receive $420 (MAR), and the NPCs receive $0.

Example

Scenario

1

FAO care decision not applied to assessment

Cuba receives a FAO care decision that cannot be applied to the child support assessment through automated Eligibility. This generates a Care – Case Review Required intray.

Several weeks later a Service Officer:

• reviews the case
• deletes the overdue intray
• unlocks the customer, and
• does not resolve the issue or apply the care

In a later phone call, a Service Officer identifies that the recent FAO care decision has not been applied to the assessment.

An error occurs because:

• the process for applying the FAO care decision failed, and
• the time frame for the Care - Case Review Required intray has expired

Service Officers must follow the Correcting Errors process.

2

Centrelink information not received in Cuba

A customer calls to advise that a FAO care decision is not being reflected in their assessment. A Service Officer investigates and finds the decision was correctly processed in Centrelink systems. However, no external care information regarding the change has been received in Cuba.

As the data exchange process has failed to apply the care, Service Officers must follow the Correcting Errors process.

3

Care record not created for relevant dependent child

A customer tells Child Support of a new relevant dependant. The officer receiving the information creates a new record for the child and adds them to the customers’ case with the correct role. However, no care records are keyed for the child.

The customer calls when they receive their next assessment notice to ask why their new child is not reflected.

As a care decision was not made and processed at the time the child was reported, an error has occurred. Service Officers must follow the Correcting Errors process.

4

Past error and system fix not applied to case

While reviewing the eligibility pre-confirmation window on a case, an officer sees a change to incomes used in a past period. Upon investigation, they determine that a lower deemed income had previously been applied to a past child support period. Cuba system updates to rectify the issue have not been applied to the case.

As an error occurred in the past and a previous system fix has not been actioned, Service Officers must follow the Correcting Errors process.

5

Follow up with other party made within 28 day timeframe

After taking an application for collection, a Service Officer did not follow up with the other party within the allowed 28 day timeframe. After issuing an MOI7-1 Payer contact before AFC Opt In is accepted letter, another 21 days elapse before a decision can be made.

As the decision was not made with in the legislatively required timeframe of 28 days, Service Officers must follow the Correcting Errors process.