logo
Couple owes $20,000 Working for Families debt 'through no fault of our own'

Couple owes $20,000 Working for Families debt 'through no fault of our own'

RNZ News4 days ago

Just a quarter of 'squared up' Working for Families recipients are getting the right amount.
Photo:
RNZ
Phoenix Ruka says he and his wife owe about $18,000 to $20,000 in Working for Families debt, despite always doing their best to ensure that they supplied the correct details about their income and circumstances.
"We've always stayed up-to-date with my salary and what we received from them and updated my salary every time it went up and down," Ruka said.
"What were receiving was what they assured us we were entitled to. But then we got a massive bill saying they had overpaid us."
He said his wife had been "relentless" in trying to work out what had happened.
It was discovered that a couple of years they had been underpaid, by many thousands of dollars, which they were reimbursed, but one year they were paid too much, which left them with the debt.
"I think the really frustrating part is that it's through no fault of our own. We owe a substantial amount of money. Now they're taking $350 a fortnight out of our bank account," Ruka said.
"We've gone back and forth and shown them our expenses, that we actually can't afford the amount they're taking. We've shown them our bills, our mortgage - they told us that they can't keep taking money if we can't afford it but we can't."
He said there had been multiple times where the money that was being taken to repay the debt was all that was left in their bank account.
It's an issue the government is attempting to tackle with proposed changes to the way that income is assessed for Working for Families.
As part of the Budget, it was announced that the threshold at which entitlements start to abate was to be increased slightly, and the government would look at options to help avoid the issue of Working for Families debt.
Inland Revenue's discussion document said 85 percent of Working for Families households received their payments weekly or fortnightly during the 2022 tax year, based on an income estimate.
Only 15 percent were receiving their credits annual based on the family's actual income once income tax had been assessed.
Those who were being paid weekly or fortnightly were subject to an end of year "square up" process by Inland Revenue, the document noted, although they were expected to update IRD with any relevant changes during the year.
In the 2022 year, only 24 percent of households receiving weekly or fortnightly payments and squared up by IRD had received the right amount of Working for Families credits.
Those who were overpaid are left with a debt to repay.
The document said debt was a particular problem for low- and middle-income families because it reduced their ability to meet their day to day costs in the future.
"Debt undermines the intent of the Working for Families scheme to support low to middle income families to meet basic needs and incentivise work."
The amount owed by Working for Families recipients has been steadily increasing over the years.
The document noted that in June 2024, 56,800 accounted for $273.5 million of Working for Families debt.
There were 21,418 instalment arrangements in place to clear $50 million of debt.
"Having to estimate annual income in advance is the most common reason why families do not receive the right amount during the year," the document said.
"For many families, estimating yearly income is difficult to do with any accuracy. Under the current income estimation model, families can still be overpaid when their income increases unexpectedly. For example, something as simple as a promotion or starting a new job towards the end of the year could cancel out their Working for Families entitlement and leave them in debt."
But the document said assessing people's income very regularly could mean a lot of changes in what people received.
If someone was paid fortnightly, some months could have two paydays and some three. Someone who was paid every four weeks would occasionally be paid twice in one month.
"Families would need to check in more often to report or confirm their income so that Inland Revenue can recalculate their payments. This would mean an increase in time spent interacting with Inland Revenue and its systems. This could also mean payments would vary every week or month, making it harder for families to budget and plan."
The discussion document said the government's current thinking was that a quarterly assessment could strike the right balance between responsiveness, certainty and recipient effort. It was seeking feedback on the idea.
The government also suggests a shift from calculating a recipient's Working for Families on the recipient's estimate of future income over the coming year to basing the calculation on past income they actually received. This would help to prevent people going into debt.
It is also proposing to simplify the residence criteria for Working for Families and require both caregivers and children to be physically present in New Zealand to qualify.
Susan St John, associate professor at the University of Auckland and Child Poverty Action Group spokesperson, said she thought the review was limited.
"There are huge difficulties for self-employed in more regular assessment. For income that is not earned regularly it can cause volatility and add to the admin or compliance load. There are other ways - in Australia they hold a portion back until the end of the year."
She said the review did not address the problems of Working for Families in a meaningful way.
"They arise because the threshold is way too low and the rates of clawback way too high."
She said the scheme was confusing with the different types of credits available, and the poorest 200,000 were excluded from the full package, missing out on about $5000 a year.
Revenue Minister Simon Watts said the government knew that it could be distressing to have debt to Inland Revenue. "We are interested in what people think of the proposals."
Another woman, Amy says she's still paying off the $12,000 in Working for Families debt she was landed with three years ago, amid a messy divorce.
She and her husband were shareholders in a business and, she says, he incorrectly reported some of the business profit as income in her name.
That prompted the government to think she had been overpaid credit and she was landed with a bill.
She now can only receive $172 a week in Working for Families credits for her three children because she is paying back the debt.
She is a single parent also paying a mortgage.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Woman pleads not guilty to theft after receiving mistaken bank transfer
Woman pleads not guilty to theft after receiving mistaken bank transfer

RNZ News

time33 minutes ago

  • RNZ News

Woman pleads not guilty to theft after receiving mistaken bank transfer

Auckland retiree Sit Bong (Andrew) Che. Photo: RNZ / Liu Chen A woman charged with theft after receiving a pensioner's life savings by mistake has entered a not guilty plea. The 38-year-old West Auckland woman appeared before a magistrate at the Auckland District Court on Tuesday. Auckland retiree Sit Bong (Andrew) Che, 78, mistakenly transferred $158,643 from the UK early last year to the wrong account after missing a digit when entering payment instructions for his own Westpac account. Following the bank's own internal protocols, Westpac added a zero to the suffix, which ended up being another person's account. The recipient refused to return the money despite complaints Che lodged with the police, the banks in New Zealand and the UK as well as the banking ombudsman in both jurisdictions. Barclays Bank refunded Che's money in May, more than a year after the erroneous transfer occurred. A 37-year-old West Auckland man also pleaded not guilty to a charge of receiving $64,000 from the woman. The pair face up to seven years' imprisonment if convicted. They have been granted interim name suppression on the grounds of hardship and fair trial rights until their next appearance on 15 July. The pair have been placed on bail with conditions that include not associating with the complainant.

'Owners are unable to protect their pets' - fireworks ban petition presented to Parliament
'Owners are unable to protect their pets' - fireworks ban petition presented to Parliament

RNZ News

time33 minutes ago

  • RNZ News

'Owners are unable to protect their pets' - fireworks ban petition presented to Parliament

(from left) MPs Greg Fleming and Jenny Marcroft, and Animates' Nathalie Moolenschot, with Frankie the golden doodle in the centre. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone More 90,000 humans - and tens of thousands of animals - have signed a petition in support of a ban on the public sale of fireworks. The Pawprint Petition was presented to Parliament and was received by National MP Greg Fleming. As well as the human signatures, the petition was supplemented by nearly 80,000 additional paw, hoof prints and marks from pets of concerned owners. Petition organisers Animates said loud explosions from the letting off of fireworks - purchased around the celebration of Guy Fawkes night - created "extreme stress", leading to injuries, fatalities and missing animals. They said banning the sale of fireworks was crucial to protect animals from unnecessary fear, distress and harm. A short sale period means people stockpile fireworks that are being lit all throughout the year, say petition organisers. Photo: 123rf The New Zealand Veterinary Association spokesperson Sally Cory said fireworks caused stress and anxiety in pets, livestock, zoo animals and wildlife. "Every year, veterinarians are called to see horses that have been badly injured by panicking and running through fences, attempting to jump out of paddocks, or have run on to roads, endangering themselves and motorists. "Cats and dogs often get anxious and try to flee when fireworks are going off. As a result many each year are injured. Large animals in general suffer from fear and stress related to fireworks and the impact of fireworks on wildlife is also a recognised issue," Corry said. Animates general manager of marketing Nathalie Moolenschot told RNZ the signatures were gathered over six months and the inclusion of the animals pawprints and marks was likely to be "a world's first". "Just having [fireworks] available in New Zealand for sale for a couple of days a year enables people to stockpile them which means that they're being lit all throughout the year. "Owners are unable to protect their pets and livestock during those times," Moolenschot said. She said she was thrilled that the large response to the petition was now a matter of official record. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Judge reserves decision on injunction on Jevon McSkimming investigation
Judge reserves decision on injunction on Jevon McSkimming investigation

RNZ News

timean hour ago

  • RNZ News

Judge reserves decision on injunction on Jevon McSkimming investigation

Former Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming. Photo: Getty Images A High Court judge has reserved her decision on whether the media should be allowed to report the nature of the allegedly objectionable material found on former deputy commissioner Jevon McSkimming's work computer. McSkimming resigned as the country's second most powerful cop last month amid a four-month investigation by the Independent Police Conduct Authority and police. His resignation came after Police Minister Mark Mitchell said he was recently informed of allegations of a "very serious nature", separate to the investigation that led to him being suspended. RNZ earlier revealed pornography found on McSkimming's work computer is being investigated as alleged objectionable material. He declined to comment on the allegations through his lawyer. His lawyer Linda Clark was earlier granted a rare "superinjunction" by Justice Grau that prohibited reporting the nature of the allegedly objectionable material, as well as the existence of the injunction itself. A teleconference was then held by Justice Gwyn from the High Court at Wellington to discuss the injunction with Clark, the police, and legal counsel for RNZ, Stuff and NZME. Following the conference, the order prohibiting publication of the nature of the allegedly objectionable material was continued, but the order prohibiting the existence of the injunction was not continued, meaning RNZ could report the fact of McSkimming's application and the interim result. On Tuesday, a hearing was held in the High Court at Wellington before Justice Karen Grau in relation to the injunction. RNZ, NZME and Stuff were jointly represented by Robert Stewart KC. McSkimming's lawyer, Linda Clark, began proceedings by telling the court she was seeking orders extending the current interim orders prohibiting media from disclosing the nature of the allegedly objectionable material reportedly found on his work device or devices. The order was sought until further orders of the court. Clark alleged information deemed "essential" to the investigation had been leaked to the media who were intending to publish the information. She said the orders sought were necessary to protect the rights of someone who is subject of an ongoing police investigation and who may yet be charged with a criminal offence. The information gathered during the police investigation was "confidential", she said. In relation to public interest, she said there was already information in the media about McSkimming. She said the public interest would be served in the event he was charged and stood trial. McSkimming was on notice that the police investigation was into material purportedly found on his devices. He had been told he would be invited to a formal interview, however, no request has been received to date. A police document, classified as "confidential", would be "the centrepiece of any criminal prosecution," Clark said. "It's on the basis of that information that the police can decide whether to continue the investigation, whether to look further and whether to charge, and what to charge." She said there was also an issue in terms of privacy, and said a person under criminal investigation, prior to being charged, has a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information relating to the investigation. Clark said she was trying to "preserve Mr McSkimming's rights to engage the Criminal Procedure act if and when he's charged". She said that every time police had provided some substantive piece of information to McSkimming it had appeared within the media "in a day or two days without exception". Clark said there was public interest in McSkimming's situation. She said public interest had been served to date. "If he is charged... there will be further opportunity for media to publish more information on charges themselves and during and after any trial," she said. "But publication now of any more information about the nature of the objectionable material found on his computer will cause serious and irreversible harm." It would harm his reputation, curtail his ordinary rights under the Criminal Procedure Act, and in the event he was charged and elected trial by trial, it could impact his chance of trial by jury. "At this time he's still an innocent man who is entitled to all of the protections of a fair trial and the right to seek suppression orders." Stewart KC said a memorandum from police said they were still investigating, and no charging decision had been made. He said there was two sorts of harm that could be considered, one of which was harm to the police investigation. He said the police had no concern that further disclosure of the material would impact their investigation, or impact their decision whether or not to charge. In relation to right to a fair jury trial, Stewart KC said juries can be trusted to obey judicial directions about only dealing with the charges based solely on the evidence and to ignore pre-trial publicity. In relation to privacy, Stewart KC said McSkimming was "quite clearly" a public figure. "There is a huge public interest in these investigations into Mr McSkimming's abrupt resignation from office, first working day after he had been provided with the material by the Public Service Commission." In an affidavit, McSkimming said he resigned because he didn't want the Prime Minister or anyone else having to see what was in the reports. "The only fair way of summarising it is he jumped before he was pushed," Stewart KC said. "The public have a right to understand a little bit more about the nature of the material that led to that." Stewart KC said his clients submitted that if the interim restraint should be continued, then "matters should be left to take their course, if there is to be any restraining at all, it should be as limited as possible for as short as possible." Crown prosecutor Stephanie Bishop, appearing for police, told the court that police did not oppose the application.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store