The couple applied for hardship assistance in ACAT, but was unsuccessful. Photo: Claire Fenwicke.
A married couple earning about $200,000 a year failed in a second attempt to have the Territory’s civil tribunal dismiss their electricity and gas bills, with the decision partly due to their “very high income”.
The pair had two children and lived in Canberra when the wife applied to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) for hardship assistance with her electricity and gas accounts.
The matter was adjourned several times but by February 2025, she owed $7500 on her electricity account and $918 on her gas account from ActewAGL.
The tribunal didn’t have any evidence about the couple’s income at the time, but discharged the gas debit as well as $4000 from the electricity bill.
The wife paid $400 more on her electricity account, then made no more payments before making another application for hardship assistance, asking ACAT to discharge her electricity debit.
In this application, she said her fortnightly expenditure included $1062 for rent/mortgage, $1200 for food, credit card repayments of $200, loan repayments of $800 and buy now/pay later repayments of $100.
While she claimed her husband’s fortnightly wages were $5600 on average, his payslips showed his recent gross wages were $7431 a fortnight plus superannuation.
ActewAGL said by May, the wife owed $3835 for electricity and $123 for gas and it could offer her a payment plan on its hardship program.
When the husband was asked how paying the bills could cause him substantial hardship, he said he had “some family obligation back home” in 2024 and had to return due to his mother’s health.
He said he was a contractor and while he was away, the bills built up and he could not catch up.
In Tuesday’s (1 July) published decision by Senior Member Juliet Lucy and Senior Member Amanda Nuttall, they said the $123 gas debit was very low and they were not satisfied the couple had established that ActewAGL proposed to withdraw the service.
They said as the wife owed several thousands of dollars to ActewAGL for electricity, there was a real possibility it could have proposed to disconnect this service before she made her hardship application. But they were not satisfied ActewAGL would cause them substantial hardship by withdrawing the service.
The members said the husband “has a very high income and uses that income to pay utility bills for the home in which he lives”, estimating him to be on an income of over $200,000 per annum.
They said while the couple had some debts and high regular outgoings, some appeared to relate to discretionary spending, such as $1200 a fortnight on food.
“This discretionary spending could be reduced without causing them substantial hardship,” they said.
Also, the members said if electricity was going to be disconnected, the couple had options such as entering into a payment plan or the husband could apply for an electricity account in his own name.
“Having regard to the [husband’s] high income, we find that payment of the [wife’s] electricity debt would not cause the applicants substantial hardship, particularly if they paid it off over a period of time,” the members said.
They noted how the tribunal had already discharged part of the electricity debt in February.
The names of the husband and wife were legally suppressed.
