Payment of allowance where incorrect advice about entitlement provided

Application

An APS employee applied for review of a decision that they would not be reimbursed certain costs on sale of a house following their relocation to take up duty with the agency.

According to the applicant, they had been given incorrect advice about their entitlement to the allowance which they acted on and in so doing incurred costs on the sale of their house which they might not otherwise have incurred.

Review

The Merit Protection Commissioner found that, while the agency’s Certified Agreement did not provide an entitlement for new employees who relocate to take up engagement to receive sale and purchase allowance, the applicant had in fact been given incorrect oral advice that they were entitled to this allowance. The agency had acted quickly to correct the advice by sending new advice by email to the applicant at home, however no steps were taken to ensure that the correct information had been received by the applicant.

The applicant claims not to have seen this advice until several days after it was sent, by which time they had entered into an agreement with an agent to sell their home.

Due to the timing of the applicant’s relocation, the exclusive agreement with the selling agent effectively left the applicant with no option but to proceed with a sale through the agent and pay the agent the commission for the sale, an amount of approximately $10,000.

Having considered the matter, the Merit Protection Commissioner found that there was no evidence that the applicant had not acted in good faith on the incorrect information given to them by the agency. The Merit Protection Commissioner explored an option whereby the agency might reach an agreed resolution with the applicant by offering a reasonable amount in settlement of the issue, but agreement could not be reached in this context.

The Merit Protection Commissioner therefore formally recommended to the agency that the applicant be reimbursed a reasonable proportion of the selling agent’s fees and advised that it was his view that about 50% of the sum incurred would be a reasonable amount.

Outcome

The agency accepted the Merit Protection Commissioner’s recommendation and authorised payment to the applicant under section 73 of the PS Act.

Return to Analysis of performance