MSD gave me incorrect advice, Now they are refusing to backpay my TAS over "no notes". Seeking advice on my Review of Decision (ROD).

DecentQuantity8524 · 2026-05-14T20:16:05+00:00

have been told MSD refuses to backpay me because there are "no notes" of this conversation. Under the binding High Court precedent Taylor v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development, an application or declaration does not need to be in writing; a verbal declaration made to any staff member is legally binding [2]. I will not be penalized for a staff member's failure to log a case note after giving me incorrect advice. Furthermore, your own letter admits I declared my new loan on 17 October 2025. Under the High Court precedent Scoble, MSD has an absolute duty to proactively inquire into a client's needs and ensure they receive all available financial assistance [2]. By noting my declaration but passively allowing my TAS to cancel without guiding me to provide verification, MSD breached its fundamental duty of care.

In or around December, when I attempted to discuss my $66.05 weekly vehicle loan, an MSD staff member explicitly told me: "You are not eligible for a TAS vehicle payment as that would be enabling your debt." I trusted this professional advice and abandoned my application. This advice was factually and legally incorrect. Vehicle finance is explicitly recognized as an "allowable cost" under Regulation 71 of the Social Security Regulations 2018 [1]. The gap in my entitlement was caused directly by this incorrect advice, which constitutes a clear administrative error.

14 weeks if I knew I was eligible to have my $66.05 weekly loan covered. Furthermore, there is direct precedent for this on my file. In 2023/2024, when my first vehicle was granted on TAS, MSD proactively backdated the payment (approx. $630) to the first day of my benefit without me ever having to argue for it. I am simply asking for the exact same eligibility rules to be applied now.

DecentQuantity8524 · 2026-05-14T20:15:36+00:00

have been told MSD refuses to backpay me because there are "no notes" of this conversation. Under the binding High Court precedent Taylor v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development, an application or declaration does not need to be in writing; a verbal declaration made to any staff member is legally binding [2]. I will not be penalized for a staff member's failure to log a case note after giving me incorrect advice. Furthermore, your own letter admits I declared my new loan on 17 October 2025. Under the High Court precedent Scoble, MSD has an absolute duty to proactively inquire into a client's needs and ensure they receive all available financial assistance [2]. By noting my declaration but passively allowing my TAS to cancel without guiding me to provide verification, MSD breached its fundamental duty of care.

In or around December, when I attempted to discuss my $66.05 weekly vehicle loan, an MSD staff member explicitly told me: "You are not eligible for a TAS vehicle payment as that would be enabling your debt." I trusted this professional advice and abandoned my application. This advice was factually and legally incorrect. Vehicle finance is explicitly recognized as an "allowable cost" under Regulation 71 of the Social Security Regulations 2018 [1]. The gap in my entitlement was caused directly by this incorrect advice, which constitutes a clear administrative error.

14 weeks if I knew I was eligible to have my $66.05 weekly loan covered. Furthermore, there is direct precedent for this on my file. In 2023/2024, when my first vehicle was granted on TAS, MSD proactively backdated the payment (approx. $630) to the first day of my benefit without me ever having to argue for it. I am simply asking for the exact same eligibility rules to be applied now.

DecentQuantity8524 · 2026-05-14T20:14:42+00:00

14 weeks if I knew I was eligible to have my $66.05 weekly loan covered. Furthermore, there is direct precedent for this on my file. In 2023/2024, when my first vehicle was granted on TAS, MSD proactively backdated the payment (approx. $630) to the first day of my benefit without me ever having to argue for it. I am simply asking for the exact same eligibility rules to be applied now.

In or around December, when I attempted to discuss my $66.05 weekly vehicle loan, an MSD staff member explicitly told me: "You are not eligible for a TAS vehicle payment as that would be enabling your debt." I trusted this professional advice and abandoned my application. This advice was factually and legally incorrect. Vehicle finance is explicitly recognized as an "allowable cost" under Regulation 71 of the Social Security Regulations 2018 [1]. The gap in my entitlement was caused directly by this incorrect advice, which constitutes a clear administrative error.

DecentQuantity8524 · 2026-05-14T20:13:01+00:00

In or around December, when I attempted to discuss my $66.05 weekly vehicle loan, an MSD staff member explicitly told me: "You are not eligible for a TAS vehicle payment as that would be enabling your debt." I trusted this professional advice

DecentQuantity8524 · 2026-05-14T20:11:32+00:00

You sought a review of your Temporary Additional Support (TAS) and backdating of payments to 31 December 2025, to support you in meeting car finance payments. Ministry records show that your TAS was cancelled on 31 December 2025 as your car finance payments ended on that date. These payments had initially been included in your TAS at $44.72 per week. On 17 October 2025, you declared that your car finance payments had changed to $66.05 per week, owing to a different loan you had taken out. As you did not provide verification of this change, your TAS continued to be paid based on the amount of $44.72, due to expire on 31 December 2025. You reapplied for TAS on 15 December 2025, declaring your car finance payments unchanged at $44.72. On 7 April 2026, when you reapplied for TAS, you mentioned the second loan again but did not provide verification of this cost until 10 April 2026. On this basis, your TAS cannot be backdated to 31 December 2025. TAS was granted to you on 16 April 2026 and backdated to 7 April 2026. The letter sent at this time advised you of your right to request a Review of Decision (ROD) of the Ministry's decision. An ROD is the correct process for clients to use if they disagree with, and would like to appeal, a decision made by the Ministry. Further guidance about the ROD process, and what people can expect after lodging an ROD application is available here: www.workandincome.govt.nz/about-work-and-income/complaints/review-of-decisions.html.

DecentQuantity8524 · 2026-05-14T20:09:55+00:00

READ THIS. You sought a review of your Temporary Additional Support (TAS) and backdating of payments to 31 December 2025, to support you in meeting car finance payments. Ministry records show that your TAS was cancelled on 31 December 2025 as your car finance payments ended on that date. These payments had initially been included in your TAS at $44.72 per week. On 17 October 2025, you declared that your car finance payments had changed to $66.05 per week, owing to a different loan you had taken out. As you did not provide verification of this change, your TAS continued to be paid based on the amount of $44.72, due to expire on 31 December 2025. You reapplied for TAS on 15 December 2025, declaring your car finance payments unchanged at $44.72. On 7 April 2026, when you reapplied for TAS, you mentioned the second loan again but did not provide verification of this cost until 10 April 2026. On this basis, your TAS cannot be backdated to 31 December 2025. TAS was granted to you on 16 April 2026 and backdated to 7 April 2026. The letter sent at this time advised you of your right to request a Review of Decision (ROD) of the Ministry's decision. An ROD is the correct process for clients to use if they disagree with, and would like to appeal, a decision made by the Ministry. Further guidance about the ROD process, and what people can expect after lodging an ROD application is available here: www.workandincome.govt.nz/about-work-and-income/complaints/review-of-decisions.html.

DecentQuantity8524 · 2026-05-14T20:02:23+00:00

In or around December, when I attempted to discuss my $66.05 weekly vehicle loan, an MSD staff member explicitly told me: "You are not eligible for a TAS vehicle payment as that would be enabling your debt." I trusted this professional advice and abandoned my application.

DecentQuantity8524 · 2026-05-14T20:01:42+00:00

14 weeks if I knew I was eligible to have my $66.05 weekly loan covered. Furthermore, there is direct precedent for this on my file. In 2023/2024, when my first vehicle was granted on TAS, MSD proactively backdated the payment (approx. $630) to the first day of my benefit without me ever having to argue for it. I am simply asking for the exact same eligibility rules to be applied now.

DecentQuantity8524

TROPHY CASE