Principal place of residency

Always get their side in writing first; that way you are sure of their concerns and it locks them into a single position.
How would have access to your private 'usage' details?  This may be a breach of your privacy, an unlawful act.
I assume that the bills are in your name and it was not rented out so there will be no other name registered to that address?
Their suspensions are NOT proof of anything; if they wish to take administrative action, they MUST base their decision on FACT.

I was thinking the same thing.

Cheers

Jamie

No need for a warrant for these sorts of enquiries. Police and other agencies, even private investigators, could get access to these records if they relate to the investigation of a possible offence.

Jules, I have written about it here before – its in one of my 11,220 posts somewhere -2-3 years ago from memory.

TerryW, I do not know which country you live in but here in Australia police and govt agents still need a warrant to get copies of documents from private companies. As for private investigators getting access to private data, forget it! The 'only' agency that I know of that did not need a warrant was the WA Industrial Relations Department inspectors in regard to wage records; even the police HAD to get a warrant to obtain the same private and confidential material and that was BEFORE the Privacy Act came into effect. 

Even if (and that is a BIG if) they got such records it still does not negate the fact that people are: 1) entitled to live away from their PPOR for however long they like; 2) Having a small power, water and gas bill is NOT evidence that it is not his PPOR, rather it is evidence that his bills are small and nothing more than that; 3) Suspicion is NOT proof that it is NOT his PPOR; 4) It is still the law that they have to PROVE the facts alleged before his has to provide a defence.

The Vic "SRO gathers information via the public [dobbed in], data-matching [from public records; this does NOT include private company records unless under a warrant**] and other sources to ensure recipients of the Grant comply with the 6 month residence requirement." http://www.sro.vic.gov.au/SRO/sronav.nsf/childdocs/-6BF180369BCB3975CA2575A1004420CF-FFEFCD2ABA129376CA2575CB0001A2F0?open
** We would all be happy to be enlightened as to what power the Vic SRO has to be able to gather private document without a warrant?? The same goes for private investigators', who I understand are private citizens

The Vic SRO also defines:
 

"Principal Place of Residence [as]…

The home you primarily reside in. This home must be occupied by an applicant for a continuous period of at least six months commencing within 12 months of the completion of the eligible transaction."
http://www.sro.vic.gov.au/SRO/sronav.nsf/childdocs/-6BF180369BCB3975CA2575A1004420CF-8024A4ADFB9DAED9CA2575A1004420DC-517A6BE594B53E7FCA2575CB0000A442?open

The definition states that it is:
 A…."the home that you primarily reside in….[and]
The home must be occupied by the applicant;
C) …for a continuous period of …six months….
D) …commencing within 12 months of the eligible transaction [either settlement or completion of construction] with each of the 4 items being required to be met.
So;
1) "Primarily' means "essentially; mostly; chiefly; principally, mainly": It does not mean 100% of the time; at best that might mean 50% of the time.
2) 'Occupied' means "To dwell or reside in; To hold or fill (an office or position); To seize possession of and maintain control over".
 'Occupied' includes dwell in or reside in or hold the property or to seize possession or to maintain control over'. No where does it say that the application must ONLY reside in the said property or for what % of time would be considered a minimum requirement.
3) 'By the applicant'.  This does not mean that he can be the only occupant of the property.
4) 'for a continuous period of 6 months; self explanatory and
5) This period of 6 months can 'start' at any time within 12 months…

In a nut shell, as long as you lived in the house and did not rent or lease it out to a 3rd party and you maintained control over the property for 6 months, starting no later than 12 maths after settlement/completion then there is no way that there is any requirement to solely reside in the house and nowhere else AND to rack up bills that some party considers to be 'normal usage'.
What is 'normal uage' anyway? Is that for one person or for a family of 6? Is that for one guy or a house full of childern that spend hours racking up water and hot water bills by taking long, hot showers? {I shared a house with 3 guys with an 'average power bill. One of the guys had his daughter visiting 2 days a week plus every other weekend for 3 months; the power, water and gas bills doubled with just that one 7 year old child beccause she would stand under the hot shower, twice a day for 30 minutes at a time.}

The onus remains on the Vic SRO to PROVE their case.

This is not the ATO nor the AFP, its the Vic SRO and in every case they need a prima faca case of wrong doing before they can get access to private data. Are you saying that you accessed personal data without a warrant such as phone records, power/water/gas bills? And data sharing/matching only relates to sharing of data between govt departments and not private companies.
Even the AFP is restricted in what they can and cannot access. I refer you to Section 7 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) (TIA Act). The TIA Act generally prohibits interception of telecommunications. The main exception to this prohibition is interception under a warrant. Under sections 46, 46A and 48 of the TIA Act a telecommunication interception warrant, a named person warrant and a warrant for entry on premises can only be granted for investigations of serious offences as defined in section 5D.
The Vic Information Privacy Act 2000 – SECT 9 shows that privacy must not be violated by a Govt department or its agents (including outsourceing [private investigators]).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ipa2000231/index.html

Application of Act  9. Application of Act  (1) This Act applies to-     (a)  a Minister;     (b)  a Parliamentary Secretary, including the Parliamentary Secretary of         the Cabinet;     (c)  a public sector agency;     (d)  a Council;     (e)  a body established or appointed for a public purpose by or under an         Act;     (f)  a body established or appointed for a public purpose by the Governor          in Council, or by a Minister, otherwise than under an Act;     (g)  a person holding an office or position established by or under an Act         (other than the office of member of the Parliament of Victoria) or to         which he or she was appointed by the Governor in Council, or by a         Minister, otherwise than under an Act;     (h)  a court or tribunal;          (i)    the police force of Victoria;     (j)  a contracted service provider, but only in relation to its provision         of services under a State contract which contains a provision of a         kind referred to in section 17(2);  
There are exceptions of course: ie. Law enforcement by a law enforcement 'agency' [as defined under he Act].
Information Privacy Act 2000 - SECT 13 

Law enforcement  13. Law enforcement  It is not necessary for a law enforcement agency to comply with IPP 1.3 to 1.5, 2.1, 6.1 to 6.8, 7.1 to 7.4, 9.1 or 10.1 if it believes on reasonable grounds that the non-compliance is necessary-     (a)  for the purposes of one or more of its, or any other law enforcement         agency's, law enforcement functions or activities; or     (b)  for the enforcement of laws relating to the confiscation of the         proceeds of crime; or     (c)  in connection with the conduct of proceedings commenced, or about to         be commenced, in any court or tribunal; or     (d)  in the case of the police force of Victoria, for the purposes of its         community policing functions. 
IPP means Information Privacy Principle;  law enforcement agency means-     (a)  the police force of Victoria or of any other State or of the Northern         Territory; or     (b)  the Australian Federal Police; or     (c)  the Australian Crime Commission; or     (d)  the Commissioner appointed under section 8A of the         Corrections Act 1986; or     (e)  the Business Licensing Authority established under Part 2 of the         Business Licensing Authority Act 1998; or     (f)  a commission established by a law of Victoria or the Commonwealth or         of any other State or a Territory with the function of investigating         matters relating to criminal activity generally or of a specified         class or classes; or     (fa) the Chief Examiner and Examiners appointed under Part 3 of the         Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004;     (fb) the Special Investigations Monitor appointed under Part 2 of the         Major Crime (Special Investigations Monitor) Act 2004;     (g)  an agency responsible for the performance of functions or activities         directed to-     	(i)  the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of         criminal offences or breaches of a law imposing a penalty or sanction         for a breach; or     	(ii) the management of property seized or restrained under laws relating to         the confiscation of the proceeds of crime or the enforcement of such         laws, or of orders made under such laws; or     (h)  an agency responsible for the execution or implementation of an order         or decision made by a court or tribunal, including an agency that-     	(i)  executes warrants; or     	(ii) provides correctional services, including a contractor within the         meaning of the Corrections Act 1986, or a sub-contractor of that         contractor, but only in relation to a function or duty or the exercise         of a power conferred on it by or under that Act; or     	(iii) makes decisions relating to the release of persons from custody; or     	(i)  an agency responsible for the protection of the public revenue under a         law administered by it; 
You will note that the party must believe "on reasonable grounds" (s13) that non complienance is necessary. 
This is the main point; it is NOT reasonable for a party to assume wrong doing based on the low level of spending of a power/water
or gas bill, without taking into account the circumstances of the person concerned. An assumption has been that every person 
MUST fit into a 'normal' level of spending.
To access private data without 'reasonable grounds' is a breach of the Vic Infomation Act 2000.

As to the method of collecting private data, the Information Privacy Act 2000 - SCHEDULE 1 requires that private data be collected
from the individual concerned [s1.4]. Only then can it seek info from another person, after first informing the individual the 'must take reasonable steps to ensure that the individual is or has been made aware of the matters...' [s1.5].

1. Principle 1-Collection  1.1. An organisation must not collect personal information unless the information is necessary for one or more of its functions or activities.  1.2. An organisation must collect personal information only by lawful and fair means and not in an unreasonably intrusive way.  1.3. At or before the time (or, if that is not practicable, as soon as practicable after) an organisation collects personal information about an individual from the individual, the organisation must take reasonable steps to ensure that the individual is aware of-     (a)  the identity of the organisation and how to contact it; and     (b)  the fact that he or she is able to gain access to the information; and     (c)  the purposes for which the information is collected; and     (d)  to whom (or the types of individuals or organisations to which) the         organisation usually discloses information of that kind; and     (e)  any law that requires the particular information to be collected; and     (f)  the main consequences (if any) for the individual if all or part of         the information is not provided.  1.4. If it is reasonable and practicable to do so, an organisation must collect personal information about an individual only from that individual.  1.5. If an organisation collects personal information about an individual from someone else, it must take reasonable steps to ensure that the individual is or has been made aware of the matters...

On the facts presented, it does not appear that the individual has been given the opportunity to provide the infomation required before
the Govt department obtained private infomation from a private power/water/gas company (without or without a warrant).
Neither have they taken 'reasonable steps to ensure the individual was made aware of the matters'.

Putting the failure of the Vic SRO to abide by the Infomation Act 2000 to one side for the moment, the clerk conducting this
matter has failed to look at the personal circumstances of the before seeking infomation of an alledged offence.

Even assuming the Act was no breached (which I contend has been breached), there is no evidence that the property was not
and is not still "...occupied by an applicant for a continuous period of at least six months..."


Stick to your guns then when the dust settles, look at lodging a formal complaint for breachs of the Act.

his 
 

You have it in a nut-shell…a "revenue offence". No such 'alledged' offence has been or could have been reasonable arrived at.
Just being a state revenue service does NOT negate the requirements of that office to first seek the infomation from the 'alledged offender' or to advise him that the infomation is to be obtained from a 3rd party. The Vic SRO MUST first seek the info from the individual.
It appears that the Vic SRO obtains private info as a matter of course without first contacting the person concerned, a clear breach of the Act.

Only AFTER the Vic SRO has the details in front of them could they every come to a conclusion that an 'offence' has/could have/might have been committed. They are not entitled to go on a fishing trip.

Assuming the Act was not breached (which I contend has been breached), there is no evidence that the property was not
and is not still "…occupied by an applicant for a continuous period of at least six months…" being based on an inaccurate assumption (being the level of power/water/gas bills) that everybody must spend the same amount for every house no matter how many people live there or their personal life style or working situations.

Stick to your guns ,then when the dust settles, look at lodging a formal complaint for breachs of the Act.

Agreed.

Remember, there appears to be no evidence that the property was not and is not still "…occupied by an applicant for a continuous period of at least six months…" being based on an inaccurate/false assumption (being the level of power/water/gas bills) that everybody must spend the same amount for every house no matter how many people live there or their personal life style or working situations.

Haha – I like your straight forward approach Ian.

Cheers

Jamie