How advocacy changes what happens next.

Margaret COMPOSITE

$84,000 ATO debt · ovarian cancer, Stage IV · New South Wales · aged 54 · married, two adult children

What she came to us with

Margaret was diagnosed with Stage IV ovarian cancer in her early fifties. Her oncologist gave her a prognosis measured in months. She had run a small business through the pandemic that never quite recovered, and she owed the ATO $84,000 across income tax, GST, and superannuation guarantee charge.

The ATO had begun issuing garnishee notices against the joint bank account she held with her husband. She was spending the last months of her life on hold to the debt line, being told by different officers different things about what she could apply for, and crying in the car afterwards. Her husband was watching this happen and could not stop it.

“I don't have the energy to fight this. I just want to be with my grandchildren.”

What we did

Our licensed practitioner opened a file under a signed authority. Within one working day, all creditor contact was routed to us and the household was no longer answering the phone to the ATO. We prepared a formal Release from Payment of Certain Taxes application under sections 340-5 of Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953, supported by a treating oncologist's letter, a household income and expenditure statement, and documented evidence of serious hardship.

We also opened a parallel channel with the ATO's Complex Case team, arguing that continued collection activity against a household in end-of-life care was inconsistent with the ATO's own Debt Collection Practice Statement PS LA 2011/17.

What happened

The ATO agreed to pause all collection action within seven days of us lodging. Nine weeks later, following the Complex Case review, the ATO issued a release decision that waived the full $84,000 under the serious hardship provisions. Margaret's family received the decision in writing, on ATO letterhead. This outcome may result in equivalent relief in similar cases; it is not guaranteed.

Margaret lived a further four months. She spent them at home. She did not speak to another ATO officer.

David COMPOSITE

$46,000 credit-card debt across three banks · motor neurone disease · Victoria · aged 61 · lives alone

What he came to us with

David was a semi-retired truck driver. Motor neurone disease had progressed to the point where he could no longer drive, could no longer work, and was losing fine motor control. He was on the Disability Support Pension. He had $46,000 spread across three credit cards — two big-four banks and one non-bank issuer. Two of the accounts had already been sold to external debt collectors.

The debt collectors were calling. Some of them were calling in ways that did not comply with the ASIC/ACCC Debt Collection Guideline. David had stopped opening his mail.

What we did

We opened the file, sent a formal cease-contact letter to all three creditors and both external collectors, and lodged financial-hardship notices under section 72 of the National Credit Code (Schedule 1 to the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009).

With one of the big-four banks we invoked the ABA Banking Code of Practice 2021 Part 4 — the vulnerable-customer provisions — and asked for the debt to be considered for waiver on serious-illness grounds, providing a specialist neurologist's certificate.

What happened

All three creditors ceased contact within 14 days. Two of the three — both big-four banks — waived their portion of the debt entirely ($31,000 combined) on serious-illness grounds under their vulnerable-customer frameworks. The third creditor (non-bank) agreed to a token settlement of $500 to close the remaining $15,000 account. Total effective waiver: $45,500 of $46,000. This outcome may result from advocacy in similar cases; it is not guaranteed.

David told us the silence in the letterbox was the first peace he had had in eighteen months.

Ruth COMPOSITE

$210,000 mortgage arrears · metastatic breast cancer · Queensland · aged 47 · two children under 12

What she came to us with

Ruth's cancer had metastasised. She was on active palliative treatment. Her husband had left work to care for her and their two primary-school-aged children. They had a $610,000 mortgage on their home and had fallen $34,000 behind in repayments over eight months, with arrears fees and default interest pushing the effective shortfall towards $210,000 of remediation costs the bank was seeking. The bank had begun formal enforcement proceedings.

Losing the family home would have meant Ruth spending her final months in transitional accommodation, and her children moving school in the middle of her treatment.

What we did

This was a two-track advocacy. On track one, we lodged a formal hardship notice under section 72 of the National Credit Code and requested the bank to consider Ruth's case under Part 4 of the Banking Code of Practice. On track two, we filed a complaint with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) the same day, invoking the AFCA Approach to Financial Difficulty and requesting that all enforcement activity be paused until AFCA's process concluded — a protection built into AFCA's rules.

Simultaneously we requested a capitalise-and-recommence variation: roll the arrears into the loan balance, extend the term, and re-set the schedule at a manageable level given the household's palliative-care income.

What happened

Enforcement paused within 48 hours of the AFCA lodgement. Eleven weeks later the bank agreed to a formal variation: the $34,000 of hard arrears was capitalised into the loan, all default interest and enforcement fees ($8,400) were waived, the term was extended, and the repayment was re-based against the household's Centrelink and Superannuation-Total-Permanent-Disability income. The family kept the house. This outcome may result from advocacy in similar cases; it is not guaranteed.

Ruth's children slept in their own beds every night of her final six months.

James COMPOSITE

$28,000 personal loans across two lenders · pancreatic cancer · South Australia · aged 58 · single, no dependants

What he came to us with

James received a pancreatic cancer diagnosis with a very short prognosis. He had two unsecured personal loans totalling $28,000. His employer had granted him carer-and-sick-leave arrangements but his income had dropped by 60%. He said he did not want to leave debts behind for his elderly mother, who was his sole next of kin, to worry about.

What we did

We lodged section-72 hardship notices with both lenders and requested compassionate-grounds review under each lender's internal vulnerable-customer policy. We provided a treating oncologist's letter and a signed authority for direct practitioner-to-lender communication.

Where a lender was hesitant, we prepared a draft AFCA complaint referencing the AFCA Approach to Vulnerability and shared a copy in advance of lodging. This is a legitimate escalation signal that often unlocks internal dispute-resolution powers the lender's frontline team does not have.

What happened

Lender A (bank) waived their $16,000 in full within four weeks. Lender B (non-bank) discounted their $12,000 to a $1,200 closing settlement, which we paid from a small hardship fund James had access to. Total effective waiver: $26,800 of $28,000. This outcome may result from advocacy in similar cases; it is not guaranteed.

James's mother received the closure letters in the post after James died. She sent us a thank-you note that we still have.

Aisha COMPOSITE

$52,000 combined across four creditors · non-Hodgkin lymphoma · Western Australia · aged 39 · two young children

What she came to us with

Aisha's diagnosis came during a treatment plan that would take her out of paid work for at least twelve months, with the prognosis uncertain. She had $52,000 in debt across four separate obligations: a $22,000 car loan (secured), a $14,000 personal loan, a $9,000 credit card, and $7,000 owed to a buy-now-pay-later provider. The car was essential for her children's school runs and her hospital appointments.

The four creditors were operating at different levels of sophistication. The bank was empathetic. The BNPL provider was automated and inflexible.

What we did

Four separate parallel advocacy tracks, coordinated as one case file. Section-72 hardship notices to each creditor. The car loan we requested be moved to interest-only during treatment to preserve the asset. The personal loan and credit card we requested full-waiver review under vulnerable-customer frameworks. The BNPL provider we escalated to AFCA when their internal team refused to engage.

What happened

Car loan (secured): moved to interest-only for 12 months, family kept the car. Personal loan: $14,000 waived in full. Credit card: $9,000 waived in full. BNPL provider (after AFCA lodgement): $7,000 waived in full. Total unsecured debt waived: $30,000 of $30,000. This outcome may result from advocacy in similar cases; it is not guaranteed.

Aisha completed her treatment. Two years on, she is in remission. She is one of the reasons we are careful with the word “terminal” — medicine sometimes surprises us.

Peter COMPOSITE

$115,000 mixed business and personal debts · glioblastoma · Victoria · aged 52 · married, one dependant

What he came to us with

Peter had run a small trades business for twenty years. A glioblastoma diagnosis meant he could no longer work. His debts were a tangle: $48,000 of ATO GST arrears from the business, $22,000 on a business credit card that he had personally guaranteed, $28,000 on a home-equity redraw he had used for business cashflow, and $17,000 in general credit-card debt. Four different creditors, three different frameworks (business, secured personal, unsecured personal), and a family income that had fallen to a single Carer Payment.

What we did

This was the most technically complex of the six. We had to separate the business obligations from the personal obligations, engage the ATO on Peter's business tax debt under a serious-hardship release application, engage his bank on both the business credit card (via personal guarantee crystallisation) and the home-equity redraw, and unwind the unsecured personal cards through standard section-72 hardship notices.

For the home-equity redraw specifically, we requested a capitalise-and-recommence variation identical in shape to Ruth's above, to protect the family home.

What happened

ATO: $48,000 waived under serious-hardship release (TAA 1953 Sch 1 s340-5). Bank business card (under personal guarantee): $22,000 waived under the ABA Banking Code Part 4 process. Home-equity redraw: capitalised and re-based, family retained the house. General credit cards: $17,000 waived in full. Total waived across all creditors: $87,000 of $115,000; the remaining $28,000 is now a manageable secured obligation that will be serviced by Peter's family. This outcome may result from advocacy in similar cases; it is not guaranteed.

Peter's wife told us: “For the first time in three years I have been able to think about him, not about the bills.”