NDIS PARTICIPANTS LOSE EVEN WHEN THEY WIN

Three residents at Nardy House, a specialized high support residency on the Far South Coast, have been successful in their cases before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal .The residents were successful in having a decision reversed related to their daily RN requirements (which NDIS believed were unnecessary).

NDIS appealed the decision of the AAT. The matter is now before the Full Bench of the Federal Court.

The CEO of Nardy House explained,” Nardy House was unable to undertake this action before the AAT on behalf of our residents because there was a danger of getting to the end of the case and NDIS raising a “ conflict of interest”.

“The mission for Nardy House Inc. is to provide services to people aged 0-65 with the highest level of disability and these people require daily RN supports. The parents took up the challenge and legal aid was eventually provided. “

“The parents followed the pathway of appeal, won the cases and the supposed “model litigant”, NDIS, took the matter via Appeal to the Federal Court when the Agency lost in the tribunal.”

“The cost of the initial litigation is high prior to legal aid being able to be applied for so it is a real disincentive in this process But the real issue is even when you win you lose”

“The AAT Commissioner ordered that NDIS pay for the RN care hours allocated by the AAT decision backdated to October 2019 for each of the three residents while the Appeal before the High Court is underway. The amount outstanding is in the order of $1.5 Million and the care has already been given – either by Nardy House Nursing Staff or our DSWs. “

“The money remains unpaid. The AAT Order has been ignored by the Agency. If it was a citizen ordered by the Tribunal to pay up and the citizen ignored the Order the Bailiff would come knocking.”

“ The disgraceful situation has been allowed to develop in a Government Agency that is not meeting its legal, economic and social commitment to people with high level disabilities. It appears people with disabilities cannot win, nor can their carers or the organisations who are their providing services”