If this minimum form of application is not complied with, the Delegate ultimately has the power to refuse to deal with the claim. Should the Delegate choose to take this line, the claimant must of course be informed in writing, i.e. as a Determination.
However, such a formal rejection on the basis of non-compliance should be rare indeed. For most non-compliant claims, applicants should not be served with a formal refusal to deal w — ith the claim in the first instance. The form should instead be returned with an explanation of what information is required and the significance of the signatures required. The client must be told that the claim can not be registered until this informati — o — n has been received. Only if there is, subsequently, a refusal to conform with this direction should the Delegate then formally 'refuse to deal' with the claim as non-compliant with S54. A copy of the document should be retained for audit purposes.
For le — sser omissions on the claim form, the claim should be registered and the investigation begun prior to the request to the claimant for more information. The intent of this strategy is to minimise the delay in processing the claim.