Farman and National Disability Insurance Agency - [2022] AATA 2880

Farman and National Disability Insurance Agency [2022] AATA 2880 (2 September 2022)
Administrative Appeals Tribunal

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No: 2020/5491

National Disability Insurance Scheme Division )
Re: Elise Farman
Applicant

And: National Disability Insurance Agency
Respondent
TRIBUNAL: Senior Member K. Parker
DATE OF CORRIGENDUM: 6 September 2022
PLACE: Melbourne

The Tribunal directs the Registrar, pursuant to subsection 43AA(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, to correct a typographic error in the Reasons for Decision, by replacing the reference to “$1,500” appearing in paragraph [6], with a reference to “$1,544”.

............................[SGD].......................................
Senior Member
Division:NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME DIVISION
File Number: 2020/5491
Re:Elise Farman
APPLICANT

AndNational Disability Insurance Agency
RESPONDENT

Decision
Tribunal:Senior Member K. Parker
Date:2 September 2022
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits this matter to the National Disability Insurance Agency with a direction that it approves a new statement of participant supports for the Applicant, identical to her current statement of participant supports, but which replaces the current approved non-specific funding for assistive technology (in the sum of $1,544, or as updated), with the following supports:
(a)additional funding required to supplement or update the Applicant’s current (NDIS-funded) visual and vibrating alerting system (that is, the Current Bellman Ring System as defined in paragraph [20] below), so that she ends up with a complete a Bellman Visit System as identified by Mr Willis from Word of Mouth Technology in paragraph [24] below with additional wall mounting accessories; and

(b) additional funding of $2,409 for the requested Security Camera Support.
The Tribunal grants liberty to either party to apply if any issue arises in respect of quantifying the funding for the provision of the additional support referred to in paragraph (a) above.
......................[sgd] ..................................................
Senior Member K. Parker
Catchwords – NATIONAL DISABILTY INSURANCE SCHEME – review of decision to approve statement of participant supports – Applicant with hearing impairment requested additional funding for hardwired visual and vibrating alerting system (Visualert System) and motion-activated security camera system – conflict of issue – lead occupational therapist (OT) married to sole shareholder of the sole Australian distributor of the recommended specific visual and vibrating alerting product – evidence of treating OT found not to be impartial – evidence of independent OT engaged by NDIA preferred – Tribunal not satisfied hardwired Visualert System met “value for money” criterion and should not be included in participant’s statement of participant supports – Tribunal satisfied additional funding to allow Applicant to enhance and update her current visual and vibrating alerting system meets “reasonable and necessary supports” criteria – Tribunal satisfied motion-activated security camera system meets “reasonable and necessary supports” criteria and should be included in participant’s statement of supports – decision under review set aside and remitted with directions
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013
Cases
McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency [2017] FCA 308
Secondary Materials
Operational Guidelines issued by the NDIA: Reasonable and necessary supports | NDIS
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member K. Parker
2 September 2022
INTRODUCTION

The Applicant, Ms Elise Farman, aged 40, is a woman with a disability attributable to a hearing impairment (described in the Statement of Agreed Facts lodged by the parties, as “profound deafness”).[1] At the hearing, Ms Farman said she had experienced depression in the past for which she had received treatment from a psychologist, and that depression ran in her family. However, there is no corroborating medical or clinical evidence before the Tribunal indicating that this remains a problem for Ms Farman.[2] Ms Farman referred to having some anxiety.
[1] Refer Statement of Agreed Facts at paragraph [4].
[2] Refer Transcript Day 1 at P-40.
Ms Farman has been a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) since 20 November 2017.[3]
[3] Ibid at paragraph [5].
Requested Supports: Essentially, this application is about a request by Ms Farman to have her current visual and vibrating alerting system in her home replaced (using funding under the NDIS), by a completely new hard-wired visual and vibrating alerting system. Ms Farman also requests funding for a security camera system to be installed in her home, in circumstances where she does currently not have one. Ms Farman has a sensor flood light at the front and the rear of her home, and a video Ring doorbell which can show parts of the front of her yard; but it was reported that she does not use the video functionality on it because of the associated data usage.
Ms Farman contends that the two Requested Supports meet the “reasonable and necessary supports” criteria under s 34(1) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) (NDIS Act).
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction in this proceeding arises under s 25 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act), read in conjunction with s 103 of the NDIS Act.
For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits this matter to the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), with a direction that it approves a new statement of participant supports for Ms Farman, identical to her current statement of participant supports, but which replaces the current approved non-specific funding for assistive technology (in the sum of $1,500, or as updated), with the following supports:
(a)additional funding required to supplement or update Ms Farman’s current (NDIS-funded) visual and vibrating alerting system (that is, the Current Bellman Ring System as defined in paragraph [20] below), so that she ends up with a complete Bellman Visit System as identified by Mr Andrew Willis, Managing Director, Word of Mouth Technology (Word of Mouth), as detailed in paragraph [24] below with additional wall mounting accessories; and
(b)additional funding of $2,409 for the requested Security Camera Support.
BACKGROUND
Ms Farman lives with her husband, who is also a person with a disability arising from a hearing impairment (described as “deafness”). Mr and Ms Farman have three children who were aged three, nine and 12 at the time of the hearing.[4] Mr and Ms Farman’s children do not have any hearing impairments.
[4] Refer Transcript Day 1 at P-8.
Ms Farman lodged with the Tribunal a Home Modification and AT Report prepared by Full Time Occupational Therapy – see paragraph [16a] below. This report states that:
(a)Ms Farman received a left Cochlear Implant (CI) ten years ago, and a right hearing aid four years ago (that is, prior to the date of this report);
(b)the CI and hearing aid assist Ms Farman with lip-reading, background noise, balance, and speech;
(c)Ms Farman’s right hearing aid is removed while showering, swimming, or sleeping, and her left CI processor is turned off while she is asleep;
(d)the use of the Ms Farman’s hearing aid and the CI does not allow her to achieve “natural hearing”, and only certain frequencies can be picked up, creating difficulties in sound interpretation for Ms Farman; and
(e)the hearing aid and CI do not enable Ms Farman to hear the frequencies of a conventional fire alarm, doorbell, or baby cry alarm; or to hear noises outside of her home, for instance, if intruders were present in her front or rear yards or if her children were to cry out for help.
At the hearing, Ms Farman gave evidence that she could write and that she is able to lipread, but not with everybody.[5] Ms Farman explained that she grew up with her first language being Auslan, and that English is her second language. While she attended school, Ms Farman said she had a support person who assisted her with her English.[6] Ms Farman said she faced limitations when researching websites because Auslan is her first language, which she said had a different grammatical structure from English. Ms Farman said that she had an impairment in terms of being able to understand written text in the English language. During the hearing, Ms Farman was asked whether she had read the expert report relating to the security system and she said that she had and that, “I did do a lot of reading”.[7] The Tribunal is satisfied from this evidence that Ms Farman is currently able to read English, at least, at a basic level.
[5] Refer Transcript Day 1 at P-37.
[6] Ibid at P-53.
[7] Ibid at P-59.
Mr and Ms Farman own their own family home, which is located on a residential block on Phillip Island, Victoria. Ms Farman is the primary carer for her three children. Ms Farman is also employed as an Auslan interpreter and carries out her work duties wholly from home, using the online Zoom platform. She told the Tribunal she was able to operate the Zoom platform satisfactorily.[8]
[8] Ibid at P-42.
Mr Farman works full-time and is required to travel away from home overnight for work due to the location of the family home (being a two-hour drive, approximately, from Melbourne). Ms Farman gave evidence that her husband is generally away about three days per week and sometimes, for longer periods.[9] Ms Farman told the Tribunal that she has a sister living “down here too” (which the Tribunal takes to mean in the region where Ms Farman lives), and also a brother, but that she does not see him. Ms Farman told the Tribunal there are no other Auslan interpreters on Phillip Island.[10]
[9] Refer Transcript Day 1 at P-8.
[10] Ibid at P-9.
Ms Farman seeks review[11] of an internal review decision made by a “reviewer” of the NDIA under s 100 of the NDIS Act (Decision Under Review), affirming an earlier decision by a different delegate of the NDIA on 16 April 2020 under s 33(2) of the NDIS Act,[12] to approve a statement of participant supports forming part of Ms Farman’s NDIS plan.
[11] Refer HTB at pages 33 to 52 is Ms Farman’s AAT Application for Review.
[12] Refer T-Documents at T10.
In Ms Farman’s NDIS plan, which commenced on 16 April 2020, she had access to total funding of $21,784.71 over a notional plan period of 12 months, comprising:[13]
(a)core supports - $13,333.50;
(b)capacity building supports for:
(i)improved life choices - $1,454.89;
(i)improved daily living including assessment of assistive technology and home modification needs, allied therapy assessments and support - $5,452.32; and
(c)capital building supports – assistive technology - $1,544.
[13] Refer HTB at pages 367 to 377.
By the time of the substantive hearing of her application, Ms Farman requested funding under the NDIS, for the provision of the following two supports:
(a)Visualert Support – purchase and installation of a specific hard-wired visual and vibrating alerting system, namely, the Visualert System. This system will provide interconnection between the smoke/fire alarm, front doorbell, and baby cry monitor, used in Ms Farman’s home, and the notification receivers including the following:
(i)six visual light outlets (colour-coded to match the different types of alarms) to be built into the interior and exterior walls (at a high level near the ceiling) in different locations of Ms Farman’s home (one external and five internal);
(ii)vibrating bed shakers; and
(iii)a mobile pager to be carried on Ms Farman’s person.
The Visualert System includes a back-up lithium battery and a control box to be installed near Ms Farman’s switchboard. The quoted fee for the Visualert System is $11,935.38;[14] and
(b)Security Camera Support – purchase and installation of a closed-circuit television security camera system (Security Camera System), inclusive of:
(i)motion light sensors using Pyroelectric Infrared Sensors (PIR) and Thermal Detect Technology;
(ii)digital video recorder;
(iii)three weatherproof cameras (expandable to eight cameras) - two placed in the front and one placed in the rear of the home; and
(iv)“Smart” viewing and notification.[15]
The quoted fee for the Security Camera System is $2,409.[16]
[14] Refer Statement of Agreed Facts at paragraph [9b] and HTB at pages 201 and 202.
[15] Refer Statement of Agree Facts at paragraph [9c].
[16] Refer HTB at page 149 – Quotation from Beal Electrical dated 28 August 2020.
At the commencement of the substantive hearing, Ms Farman’s disability advocate, Ms J. Little (formerly Ms J. Girvan), Children of Deaf Adults Inc (CODA), explained to the Tribunal that Ms Farman was seeking the above supports for the follow reasons:[17]
…regarding her safety, regarding fire, security, and general wellbeing as a disabled person in her home. She is seeking to feel safe and secure, regardless of what room she is in, and is not limited to carrying any physical devices with her 24/7. She has three young children and a husband who is often away for work, due to their location.
Ms Farman is also seeking that the Tribunal understand that it is reasonable and necessary and is value for money to have the NDIS fund these two assistive technologies for her…
[17] Refer Transcript Day 1 on P-6.
The key evidence relied upon by Ms Farman in support of her request for funding for the Visualert Support and the Security Camera Support are the following two expert reports signed by Ms Melinda Vernon, Occupational Therapist, of Full Life Occupational Therapy:
(a)“Simple Non-structural Home Modification and Assistive Technology Report” dated 31 January 2020 (3 September 2020 with updated quotes) (Home Modification and AT Report); and
(b)“Assistive Technology Report CCTV” dated 18 February 2020 (CCTV AT Report).
As well as being Ms Farman’s “Treating Therapist” (as described in these reports), Ms Vernon is also listed as Ms Farman’s “representative” in the 48-page request (including attachments) lodged by or on behalf of Ms Farman with the NDIA, seeking review by the NDIA under s 100 of the NDIS Act, of the decision not to grant funding to Ms Farman for the Visualert Support and the Security Camera Support.[18]
[18] Refer HTB at pages 67 to 115.
In the Decision Under Review, the NDIA “reviewer” concluded (among other things) that:
(a)the Visualert Support does not meet the “value for money” criteria under s 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act because the delegate considered that:[19]
(i)there was insufficient evidence to indicate that this support would substantially improve the life stage outcomes for, and be of long-term benefit to, Ms Farman;
(ii)this support is not likely to reduce the cost of funding the supports for Ms Farman in the long term (that is, Auslan Interpreter funding);
(iii)the information provided by Ms Vernon does not demonstrate that the support will increase Ms Farman’s independence and reduce her need for other kinds of supports;
(iv)the Visualert System is well above the “necessary standard”, and there is no evidence that this system will perform as well as, or better than, lower cost alternatives; and
(v)approved funding was already available (that is, approximately $1,500) in Ms Farman’s NDIS plan (in the statement of participant supports) to purchase low cost/low risk Level 1 or Level 2 assistive technology; and
(b)the Security Camera System Support is a “CCTV system for home security” which is a day-to-day living cost “for all homeowners”[20]; and therefore, pursuant to Rule 5.1(d) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Rules) this support is not to be funded under the NDIS.
[19] Refer HTB at page 60.
[20] Refer HTB at page 60.
The NDIA maintained its position in respect of Ms Farman’s request for these two supports in the review proceeding before this Tribunal. There was also an earlier request made by Ms Farman for an iPad and associated data costs, but the Statement of Agreed Facts lodged by the parties, states that the iPad and data costs are no longer in issue between the parties in this proceeding.[21]
[21] Refer Statement of Agreed Facts at paragraph [11].
At the hearing, Ms Farman gave evidence that she currently has at her disposal the following assistive technology (Current Bellman Ring System):
(a) a Bellman-branded fire alarm notification system connected to a Bellman alarm clock (located next to Ms Farman’s bed), a Bellman bed shaker, a Bellman Pager Receiver and one flash receiver (Bellman System);[22]
(b) baby cry notification system consisting of a monitor connected to a pager that Ms Farman is able to carry on her person; and
(c) a Ring-branded doorbell notification system with “real time” alerts connected to:
(i)Ms Farman’s iPhone[23] causing it to send a text message stating that someone is at the door, and causing the telephone to vibrate, and potentially, also her Apple Watch (but as of the date of the functional assessment by Ms Barry, this functionality had not been activated by Ms Farman);[24]
(ii)four internal ceiling lights in the study, kitchen, bathroom and loungeroom of Ms Farman’s home, which had been fitted with Phillips Hue light globes which cause a coloured light flashing in those rooms to go off when the doorbell rings;[25] and
(iii)a Phillips Hue-branded portable light located on the kitchen bench in Ms Farman’s home.[26]
[22] Refer Mr Barry’s Report on pages 15 & 16.
[23] At the hearing, Ms Farman indicated that her iPhone may have been an iPhone 12 – refer Transcript Day 1 at P-42.
[24] Refer Mr Barry’s Report on pages 16 to 18.
[25] Refer Mr Barry’s Report on page 16 and Transcript Day 1 at P-46.
[26] Refer Mr Barry’s Report on page 16.
In short, Ms Farman is not satisfied with her current visual and vibrating alerting system. Ms Farman would prefer, instead, to receive funding under her NDIS plan to enable her to replace this system with a new hardwired Visualert System. Ms Farman considers that the Visualert System will work better in areas inside and outside of her home where the alerting receivers are likely to be exposed to water or humidity. Ms Farman also prefers the Visualert System because she would not need to carry the flashing light receiver from one part of her home to another, which she says she has to do with her current system.
Ms Farman considers that the in-built ceiling level light outlets used as part of the Visualert System are easier for her to see in her home, because of the different coloured light receivers. Ms Farman also prefers the Visualert System in-built light outlets forming part of the Visualert System, over the flashing receiver forming part of the Bellman System, which she considers to be “extremely bright”. Ms Farman also expressed concern about not being able to see the pictures on the Bellman System receiver at night, but then conceded at the hearing that she would be able to do so if she kept the receiver on her bedside table at night.[27]
[27] Refer Transcript Day 1 at P-16.
The NDIA contends that Ms Farman’s fire alarm, doorbell and baby cry notification needs would be met if “some low-cost modifications and enhancements” were made to her existing alerting system.[28] Specifically, the NDIA contends that the Bellman System she is currently using could be better coordinated, and upgraded, to enable the flash receiver to indicate notifications for the doorbell, telephone, baby cry and smoke alarm, all in the one system.[29]
[28] Refer NDIA’s Closing Submissions at paragraph [12].
[29] Ibid at paragraph [13].

In support of those assertions, the NDIA lodged an expert report by Mr Willis dated 7 July 2021 (Mr Willis’s Report). Word of Mouth is the Australian distributor of Bellman- and Visit-branded (and other products) in Australia, and is an NDIS-registered service provider.[30] For a home alerting solution, Ms Willis recommended the Bellman Visit Alerting System (Bellman Visit System), comprising the following transmitters and receivers:
[30] Refer Mr Willis’s Report on page 3.
(a)Transmitters: a range of Bellman Visit transmitters, commonly, “Smoke Alarm, Doorbell, Baby Cry and Telephone” such as:
(i)BE1289 Bellman Visit Smoke Alarm which he states:
·            has a sealed 10-year lithium battery;
·            is approved to AS3786-2014;
·            has a wireless interconnection function;
·            features an audible tone for hearing occupants of the home;
·activated alarm sends a wireless radio signal to any of the Bellman Visit Receivers within range (conservative estimate of up to 50m); and
·a standard home might use two of these;
(b) Receivers:
(i)flashing lights for the living areas of the home, “usually, one or two” or “as many as are deemed necessary by the user, or occupational therapist”. He suggested the BE1442 Bellman Visit Flash Receiver. Mr Willis states this device’s “white xenon strobe light gains your attention, and a coloured LED advises which alert is being activated (eg door, phone, fire alarm or baby cry)”. The Manual for this device states that it can be connected with a bed shaker and comes equipped with a battery backup;[31]
(ii)a visual and vibrating receiver for the bedroom, for example:
·   a BE1380 Visit Alarm Clock, which he states is placed beside the bed to wake the user up (in the morning) and to alert them to any alarms during the night; or
·   a BE1442 Flash Receiver;
(iii)if necessary, a vibrating pager for the user to wear on their person “if they want to be alerted anywhere in the home (or outside)”.
[31] Refer Mr Barry’s Report on page 4.
In addition, Ms Farman would like to acquire the Security Camera System and have it installed in her family home. She is concerned about her personal security (and that of her children) in their family home, especially at times when her husband is required to be away overnight.
The NDIA contends that Mr Farman’s evidence about the Security Camera System does not establish that this is a “reasonable and necessary support”.[32]
[32] Refer NDIA’s Closing Submissions at paragraph [21].
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
The NDIA lodged a set of documents with the Tribunal in accordance with its obligations under s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (T-Documents).
The parties lodged a Statement of Agreed Facts in this application (Statement of Agreed Facts), and a joint Hearing Tender Bundle (HTB) comprising 747 pages.
Section 2 of the HTB comprises the T-Documents which includes the reports by Full Life Occupational Therapy referred to above.[33]
[33] Refer Section 2 of the joint Hearing Tender Bundle lodged with the Tribunal. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties confirmed that the other three Full Life Occupational Therapy reports contained within Section 2 of the joint Hearing Tender Bundle, entitled “Visual Communication Assistive Technology Report” dated 17 January 2020, “Data Recommendation” dated 16 June 2020; and “Data Recommendation” (undated); were no longer relevant and that Ms Farman no longer relied upon them in this application. Refer Transcript Day 1 at P-5.
Section 3 of the HTB comprises the Applicant’s documentary evidence produced to the Tribunal before the hearing, including:
(a)an unsigned, untitled, and undated typed statement (Ms Farman’s First Response), comprising (among other things):[34]
[34] Refer HTB at pages 470 to 487.
(i)a description of Ms Farman’s lived experience;
(ii)a set of answers in response to questions asked of Ms Farman by the NDIA about her current visual alerting systems and alternative security, safety and communication measures used in her home; and
(iii)whether she has trialled alternative systems;
(iv)a summary of “comparison solutions”;
(v)a summary of “needs and solutions” including her “sensory input needs”;
(vi)a summary of the “minimum or standard level of support” for Ms Farman;
(vii)information about “alternative lower cost options considered”; and
(viii)further information about the Visualert system and the Security Camera System.
(b)a further unsigned typed statement titled “Responses to Respondent’s Statement of Issues” dated 30 January 2021 (Ms Farman’s Second Response), comprising further responses to questions and a request for more information by the NDIA about:[35]
[35] Refer HTB at pages 488 to 495.
(i)    what steps Ms Farman had taken to improve the Wi-Fi connectivity in her home;
(ii)   other issues arising in relation to the use of wireless CCTV systems and lower cost notification devices that rely on Wi-Fi connection;
(iii) the devices currently available and/or being used in Ms Farman’s home;
(iv) Ms Farman’s concerns about privacy issues when using certain devices;
(v)   whether the notification settings of the trialled devices could be changed to improve notification consistency;
(vi) whether Ms Farman had undertaken any measures to address perceived shortcomings of her current notification system being used by her, in terms of the visibility of the Bellman flash receiver;
(vii)the radiofrequency difficulties experienced when using the Bellman System and where in her house she encountered such difficulties;
(viii)    why Ms Farman had not installed other security measures within her home, such as deadbolt locks or security grating;
(ix) (to support) the assertion that Ms Farman’s family home was in an area that had a high rate of home burglaries and break-ins;
(x)   whether the Bellman device was currently being used by Ms Farman and which alarm systems were connected to this device; and
(c)safety devices purchased by Ms Farman on 26 November 2020,[36] including their purpose and whether that purpose had been achieved;
(d)an undated typed statement, which is signed by Ms Farman, (Ms Farman’s Statement) comprising 17 “answers” provided by Ms Farman to questions by the NDIA included in an Annexure to the NDIA’s Statement of Issues dated 26 February 2021;[37]
(e)the “Service Agreement” (for the provision of “therapeutic support”)[38] between Ms Farman and a “service provider”, Louise Dreyer OT Pty Ltd,[39] trading as “Full Life Occupational Therapy”, which on the face of it appears to have been executed by “Melinda Vernon: Full Life Occupational Therapy” on 8 January 2020 (OT Service Agreement).[40] This OT Service Agreement estimates that the “service component of engagement” will include:[41] “Initial 2-3 hours; Travel 2 hours; Case coordination 1-2 hours; HM report 5-6; CCTV report 2-3 hours; and VC report 2 hours”. At the hearing, Ms Dreyer said she had a one-page document containing Ms Farman’s signature in execution of the OT Service Agreement. It was subsequently produced by Ms Dreyer. It was not dated by Ms Farman and was not produced at any earlier stage to the Tribunal. Ms Farman confirmed at the hearing she had signed this on 11 April 2020;[42]
(f)a Full Life Occupational Therapy, “Consent to Collect and Share Your Information” form signed by Ms Farman on 3 September 2020;[43]
(g)statement issued by “TP Records” of expenditure of funding in Ms Farman’s NDIS plan commencing on 16 April 2020, which includes $2,273.52 spent on services provided by “Full Life OT” from 24 August 2020 to 10 January 2021;[44] and
(h)a colour photograph of Ms Farman’s bathroom in her family home.[45]
[36] Refer HTB at page 504 under the heading ‘Assistive technology’.
[37] Refer HTB at page 496.
[38] Ibid at page 501.
[39] The heading to this agreement above the preamble refers to the Service Provider being Louise Dreyer Pty Ltd, but in the body of the agreement refers to the Service Provider being Louise Dreyer OT Pty Ltd.
[40] Refer HTB at page 497 to 501.
[41] Ibid at page 501.
[42] Refer Transcript Day 2 at P-152.
[43] Refer HTB at page 502.
[44] Ibid at page 503.
[45] Ibid at page 504.
Section 4 of the HTB comprises the NDIA’s documentary evidence produced to the Tribunal before the hearing, including various ASIC company and business name search extracts, Fire Rescue Victoria publications, and the following expert reports relied upon by the NDIA:
(a) report by Ms Theresa Barry, Occupational Therapist, dated 8 June 2021 (Ms Barry’s Report). Ms Barry was engaged by the NDIA to provide an independent expert report in this proceeding;
(b) Mr Willis’s report referred to in paragraph [24] above;[46] and
(c) report by Mr Daniel Lewkovitz, Managing Director, Calamity Monitoring, dated 14 July 2021 (Mr Lewkovitz’s Report). Mr Lewkovitz has expertise in the field of home security systems.
[46] Refer Mr Willis’s Report on page 3.
The NDIA called Ms Barry, Mr Willis, and Mr Lewkovitz as expert witnesses at the hearing. NDIA lodged the following written submissions with the Tribunal:
(a)Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 22 July 2021 (NDIA’s SFIC); and
(b)Closing Submissions lodged on 26 October 2021[47] (NDIA’s Closing Submissions).
[47] These submissions are dated 21 July 2021 which is a typographical error as this date precedes the hearing. The submissions were lodged on 26 October 2021 and again, on 21 November 2021.
Ms Farman was provided with an opportunity to lodge closing submissions after the hearing. On 9 October 2021 Ms Farman informed the Tribunal by email that she was happy not to make a closing statement.
ISSUES
The Tribunal is required to undertake a merits review of the NDIS decision. It will, in effect, stand in the shoes of the original decision maker, who, on 16 April 2020, approved a statement of participant supports under s 33(2) of the NDIS Act in respect of Ms Farman. This statement of participant supports included a set of approved supports, a review date, and stipulations as to how the funding and other aspects of the plan were to be managed.
In deciding whether to approve a statement of participant supports under s 33(2) of the NDIS Act, the relevant decision-maker must have regard to the matters set out in s 33(5); which include whether the supports meet the “reasonable and necessary supports” criteria in s 34(1) of the NDIS Act.
The key questions arising in this application stem from a disagreement between the parties as to whether the Visualert Support and the Security Camera Support meet the “reasonable and necessary supports” criteria under s 34(1) of the NDIS Act and should be funded under the NDIS. A further question arises as to whether funding should be approved to allow Ms Farman to purchase and install the Bellman Visit System (minus the cost of any components Ms Farman already has in her possession to complete this system), as an alternative to the Visualert System. Determination of those questions will inform the outcome of the Tribunal’s review as referred to in paragraph [34].
CONSIDERATION
The NDIS was established under the NDIS Act and pursues the objectives set out in s 3. Section 4 establishes general principles guiding actions to be taken under the NDIS Act, which extends to the Tribunal when making a decision upon review following an application made to it under s 103 of the NDIS Act. The Tribunal acknowledges that “choice and control” (of and by the participant) is one principle that it must have regard to when making this decision.
Section 33(5) of the NDIS Act requires that the CEO (or their delegate), in deciding whether to approve the SOPS under s 33(2), must have regard to a number of factors including the participant’s statement of goals and aspirations, relevant assessments conducted in relation to the participant, and as mentioned above, be satisfied the supports are “reasonable and necessary”.
Section 34(1) of the NDIS Act requires six mandatory criteria be met before a support is considered “reasonable and necessary”. Section 34(2) provides that the NDIS rules may prescribe methods or criteria to be applied or matters to which the decision maker is to have regard, in deciding whether they are satisfied that the criteria under s 34(1) have been met in respect of a requested support. Such rules were issued on 18 June 2013, specifically, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Support Rules).
The Tribunal notes the observations of Mortimer J in McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency [2017] FCA 308 (McGarrigle) at [43] as follows:
The [Support Rules] are an important element of the legislative scheme, introducing the ability to modify the operation of ss 33 and 34 by, for example, excluding certain kinds of supports from inclusion in participant plans. It is through the Rules that the executive is able to implement … some policy decision-making about the nature and extent of supports to be provided or funded under the NDIS.
Visualert Support - Section 34(1)(c) “value for money”
A key focus of the submissions made by the parties in this application is whether the requested Visualert Support satisfied the “value for money” mandatory criterion under s 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act in deciding whether it is a “reasonable and necessary support”.
Section 34(1)(c) requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that a support represents value for money; in that the costs of the support are reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative supports.
Rule 3.1 of the Support Rules deals with assessing the “value for money” criterion under s 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act. This rule is set out below:
Value for money
3.1In deciding whether the support represents value for money in that the costs of the support are reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative support, the CEO is to consider the following matters:
(a) whether there are comparable supports which would achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost;
(b)whether there is evidence that the support will substantially improve the life stage outcomes for, and be of long‑term benefit to, the participant;
(c)whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports);
(d) for supports that involve the provision of equipment or modifications:
(i)the comparative cost of purchasing or leasing the equipment or modifications; and
(ii)whether there are any expected changes in technology or the participant’s circumstances in the short term that would make it inappropriate to fund the equipment or modifications;
(e)whether the cost of the support is comparable to the cost of supports of the same kind that are provided in the area in which the participant resides;
(f)whether the support will increase the participant’s independence and reduce the participant’s need for other kinds of supports (for example, some home modifications may reduce a participant’s need for home care).
The Tribunal will consider whether there are comparable supports which would achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost as required by Rule 3.1(a) of the Support Rules. Rule 3.1(e) also focuses on the issue of cost, but in this matter, no issue arose in relation to this subrule, because both the Visualert System and the Bellman Visit System are required to be shipped to Ms Farman from remote locations. The NDIA contends that there are comparable supports which would achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost; specifically, Ms Farman’s current assistive technology with some enhancements and a possible upgrade to complete the Bellman Visit System. The NDIA relies upon Mr Willis’s Report, and on the opinions and recommendations in Ms Barry’s Report.
To undertake this assessment, it is necessary for the Tribunal to identify the outcome which is to be achieved by the Visualert System; and to consider whether the same outcome could be achieved by comparable supports at a substantially lower cost. Fundamentally, the desired outcome is that Ms Farman is reliably and contemporaneously alerted, in each of the following three instances:
(a)when her smoke/fire alarm is activated;
(b)when her children cry out; and
(c)when someone rings her front doorbell;
including at all times when:
(a)she is asleep,
(b)she is showering;
(c)she is in wet areas of her home (such as the bathroom, kitchen, or laundry); and
(d)when she is outside of the home.
Ms Farman’s need for this outcome arises from her disability attributable to her hearing impairment.
Mr Willis has recommended for hearing-impaired persons, generally, that they access the following solution to achieve this type of outcome (emphasis added in bold):[48]
For home alerting solutions I recommend the Bellman Visit Alerting system. I suggest a combination of receivers to suit the applicants’ requirements. This normally includes visual flashing lights for the living areas of the home (as many as are deemed necessary by the user or occupational therapist.) A visual and vibrating receiver for the bedroom eg BE1380 Visit Alarm Clock or BE1442 Flash Receiver. If necessary, a vibrating pager for the user to wear on their person if they want to be alerted anywhere in the home (or outside). The system includes a range of transmitters, a client can choose what they wish to be alerted to. The common transmitters are Smoke Alarm, Doorbell, Baby Cry and Telephone.
[48] Refer HTB at page 566.
Ms Willis states in his report as follows (emphasis added in bold):[49]
The Bellman Visit system would provide equivalent functionality, however the Bellman Visit System does not provide a 240V mains powered smoke alarm with battery backup. I consider it equivalent because it will provide a visual indication in all of the rooms within the client’s house. I consider it better for alerting outside the house if the client will accept to wear the Bellman Visit Pager. The tactile vibration would be more reliable outside than a visual indication as there are no surfaces for a visual light to reflect off (as there are inside). I am confident of coverage with the Bellman system using a wireless platform after reviewing the floor plan provided. I consider it better because of the ease of portability. Should the user change the layout of their home or move homes the system can be relocated at by the user or a handy person.
[49] Ibid at page 574.
Mr Willis provided a quote for the alternative Bellman Visit system, being $5,388.64 plus GST, minus the cost of any components that Ms Farman currently owns.[50] The Tribunal considers that this system is substantially lower in cost than the requested Visualert System (that is, it is approximately half the cost of the Visualert System).
[50] Ibid.
Ms Farman does not agree with Mr Willis’s recommendation. She contends there are benefits to be achieved by using the Visualert System, over the alternative Bellman Visit System. Ms Farman also contends there would be certain disadvantages in using the Bellman Visit System.
Before turning to those advantages and disadvantages, the Tribunal considers it necessary to first address a general question of how much weight it should place on the opinions and recommendations of Ms Farman’s treating occupational therapist, Ms Vernon, from Full Life Occupational Therapy. This question warrants close attention because of the close involvement between Ms Louise Dreyer who described herself as the “Lead Therapist” in the Full Life Occupational Therapy reports, and the sole distributor of the Visualert System in Australia at the time the Home Modification and AT Report and CCTV AT Report were issued, being Seventeen’s Dream Pty Ltd, which Ms Dreyer’s husband owns and controls (Conflict of Interest).
Conflict of interest

Ms Farman relies heavily upon the opinions and recommendations Ms Vernon, of Full Life Occupational Therapy, in support of her request for the Visualert Support. In fact, the Tribunal notes that Ms Farman’s application for review was actually lodged with the Tribunal by Ms Vernon (and not by Ms Farman).[51] In Ms Vernon’s covering email attaching Ms Farman’s AAT application for review, she states (emphasis added): “We look forward to the outcomes of this application request”.[52] At the time of writing her report, Ms Vernon was a salaried employee of the legal owner of the business of Full Time Occupational Therapy, being Louise Dreyer OT Pty Ltd.
[51] Refer HTB at page 32 & 33 - covering letter from Ms Vernon to the AAT attaching Ms Farman’s application for review.
[52] Ibid at page 32.
Ms Dreyer’s husband is the sole shareholder of Seventeen’s Dream Pty Ltd (Seventeen’s Dream), which was the sole distributor of the Visualert System in Australia at the time Full Life Occupational Therapy issued the Home Modification and AT Report and CCTV Report.[53] NDIS funding from Ms Farman’s NDIS plan was used to commission the preparation of those reports.
[53] At the hearing, Ms Dreyer confirmed that Seventeen’s Dream is “by chance” (or in fact) the sole distributor of the Visualert products but there was no legal right for this company to be the sole distributor. The Tribunal considers that that nothing turns on the distinction sought to be made by Ms Dreyer in this regard. Refer Transcript Day 1 at P-83.
At the hearing of this application, Ms Farman called Ms Vernon as an expert witness. Before the hearing, the Tribunal informed the parties that it also wanted to hear from Ms Dreyer. Ms Dreyer attended on the first day of hearing.
At the hearing Ms Dreyer gave the following evidence in answer to questions from the Tribunal:
(a)Full Life OT is an organisation that “specifically focus only on the deaf community” and that is her passion;[54]
(b)she employs seven occupational therapists who provide therapy services through her organisation, and they are based in different States across Australia;[55]
(c)Ms Melinda Vernon is one of them, and she is based in New South Wales;[56] and
(d)the occupational therapists were “full-time staff. Permanent”.[57]
[54] Refer Transcript Day 1 at P-65.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Ibid at P-66.
[57] Ibid.
When Ms Dreyer was asked by the Tribunal to describe her relationship with Seventeen’s Dream, she offered to explain her and her husband’s involvement with this company and how it evolved. Ms Dreyer explained she, personally, had conducted several home assessments in the deaf community and had seen, consistently, that, “deaf people either had no hearing devices, or notification devices, and they did not effectively notify them of fire alarms or doorbells or any proper notification”.[58] Ms Dreyer told the Tribunal that those persons using devices reliant upon Wi-Fi or radio frequency connection, “constantly dropped out”, and “they reported that they were unreliable and not adequate”.[59]
[58] Ibid 1 at P-69.
[59] Ibid.
Ms Dreyer said the biggest problem was that a lot of those systems could not be set up outside, or in wet areas, which is where she said most of the clients wanted them installed.[60] Ms Dreyer said that she was contacted by an “NDIS planner” in 2018, on behalf of the planner’s client. She said this planner told her that the Bellman products had not been suitable, and that the client had been issued with a $10,000 budget to investigate a hard-wired notification system.[61]
[60] Ibid.
[61] Ibid at P-70.
Ms Dreyer sent to the Tribunal in support of her explanation as to how it came to be that her husband was involved in distributing this assistive technology:
(a)an email dated 5 July 2018 from Mr Andrew Wiltshire, Support Coordinator, to Ms Dreyer referring to a particular participant’s “NDIS planner” having agreed that a fully wired system was needed, but an OT assessment and quotes were required before a report would be sent to the NDIA. Mr Wiltshire requested that Ms Dreyer undertake the assessment of the participant and that she sends to him a Service Agreement and information about her fees; and
(b)a copy of an NDIS plan that had been approved for this participant on 26 June 2018. The plan approved funding for this participant to receive a hard-wired visual communication system, including home modifications.
The letter by Mr Wiltshire does not support Ms Dreyer’s evidence that she had been asked by an NDIS planner to look into a hard-wired visual communications system. At most, it comprises a request by an NDIS support coordinator, who is an independent service provider, and not a representative of the NDIA, to undertake an OT assessment in respect of their client. Importantly, Ms Dreyer did not ever produce to the Tribunal, upon undertaking to do so, a copy of the letter she claimed to have sent to an “NDIS planner” to advise this person about her involvement with Seventeen’s Dream.
The Tribunal asked Ms Dreyer to state her involvement with Seventeen’s Dream. At first, Ms Dreyer said she had “no involvement” in that company and that she was married to this company’s sole shareholder.[62] Ms Dreyer then conceded that she had an indirect involvement in this company by her husband being its sole shareholder. When asked whether she discloses this to her potential clients, Ms Dreyer said that she does.[63] When asked to explain how she makes this disclosure to her potential clients, Ms Dreyer did not answer the question initially and instead, gave a lengthy explanation about how she came to be involved with Seventeen’s Dream and how her husband became involved in the distribution of the Visualert System. Later in the hearing, Ms Dreyer explained that she has now made a video which discloses the Conflict of Interest to prospect clients and that her employee occupational therapists will also explain this to prospective clients when they undertake their assessment.
[62] Ibid.
[63] Ibid at P-71.
Ms Dreyer gave evidence that her husband placed a “mark-up” (or took a commission) on the Visualert system each time it was sold, to pay for the cost of a General Manager who had been employed to run the selling of those products by Seventeen’s Dream. When first asked what the mark-up was, Ms Dreyer was evasive and said the Tribunal would need to confirm that with “Assisted Tech Solutions” (being the former name of the Seventeen’s Dream company), because she said she was not involved in that side of the business. When pressed by the Tribunal, Ms Dreyer gave evidence that the mark-up was about 22 or 23 percent. When asked whether Ms Dreyer had an issue with recommending that products supplied at a mark-up by her husband should be funded under the NDIS, in an OT report issued by one of her salaried OTs, her response was:[64]
As long as it’s been disclosed to the client, and it’s suitable for the client. No, I would want her to choose the product that’s most suitable for the client.
[64] Ibid at P-72.
Ms Dreyer acknowledged that she realised in April 2019, before they had supplied any of the Visualert products, there was a potential conflict of interest when they, or her husband, had decided that he could potentially be a distributor for this product.[65] Ms Dreyer said she wanted to be honest and transparent so she inserted a clause in all of her service agreements “to explain that there’s a conflict of interest with products that we could recommend when doing the assessment”.[66] Ms Dreyer added that it was always discussed with the participant.
[65] Ibid at P-73.
[66] Ibid.
Clause 5.8 of the Service Agreement between Ms Farman and Louise Dreyer OT Pty Ltd[67] provides as follows:
The client acknowledges that the service provider may receive a commission and/or share of revenue from the sale of products recommended to the client.
[67] At the hearing, Ms Dreyer gave evidence that this is a typographical error and should have been a reference to Louise Dreyer Pty Ltd and not Louise Dreyer OT Pty Ltd.
The Tribunal asked Ms Dreyer whether this was the clause she had inserted into her Service Agreement as mentioned in paragraph [62] above. Ms Dreyer confirmed that it was, and that it had been “modified over time”.[68] Ms Dreyer accepted that she received an “indirect revenue of the product”.[69] Ms Dreyer said that she received feedback from some “clients in the NDIS” and legal guidance that this clause was not as clear as it should have been, causing her to change the wording of it.[70] Ms Dreyer said she always discussed it “in a verbal recommendation” and that she made an Auslan video about it which specifically states her husband distributed the product and Ms Dreyer is “an indirect beneficiary”.[71] Ms Dreyer told the Tribunal that all of her staff were taught to disclose the Conflict of Interest if they recommend this product. Ms Dreyer said she had seen a signed consent form indicating that Ms Farman had seen the Auslan video. Ms Dreyer said she was “completely satisfied” that Ms Farman was “fully aware” of the Conflict of Interest.[72]
[68] Refer Transcript Day 1 at P-73.
[69] Ibid at P-74.
[70] Ibid.
[71] Ibid at P-75.
[72] Ibid.
The Tribunal questioned Ms Dreyer about when Ms Farman had signed the consent form and whether it was before the Full Life Occupational Therapy’s reports had been issued. Her response was she was not aware of the time frame. Ms Dreyer said that the Conflict of Interest was discussed verbally with Ms Farman at the initial assessment.
The Tribunal asked Ms Dreyer when she first disclosed to the NDIA her involvement with her husband’s company as a supplier of the Visualert products.[73] Ms Dreyer’s response was:
I've always disclosed it as soon as somebody wanted more things, but I did not send a separate document - I didn't know about the conflict. I thought the conflict of interest was between me and the participant.
The Tribunal asked Ms Dreyer who paid for the product and she responded that it was the NDIA.
[73] Ibid at P-76.
Ms Dreyer said that she had sent a letter to the NDIA to “just say that this is an issue, and this is where the conflict of interest has arrived”. Ms Dreyer said that she could not remember the dates of this letter and whether she had sent it to an NDIA planner. She then said that she could not recall sending a specific thing to make the NDIA aware of the Conflict of Interest. She said she did it within the service agreements and between the participant and herself.[74] Ms Dreyer gave evidence that she had spoken to a friend who was a lawyer who had told her she did not need to disclose the Conflict of Interest and that she only needed to do so with participants.[75] Ms Dreyer conceded that “maybe” she should have sought “more proper legal advice then”.[76]
[74] Ibid at P-77.
[75] Ibid at P-78.
[76] Ibid.
The Tribunal notes that the quote for the Visualert System records the address for the service provider as being in York Street, Sydney, and not the registered address for Seventeen’s Dream which is Ms Dreyer’s and her husband’s former home address. Ms Dreyer gave evidence that the York Street address is the address of an insurance business, Fishburners, which her husband also owns. Ms Dreyer denied that her husband had put the York Street address on the Visualert quotation, so that it was not apparent to the reader that she was connected with it.[77] She said she thinks the idea was that if a person wanted to come to see her husband about the Visualert quotation, they would go to visit him at the York Street address, and not his (former) home address.[78] The Tribunal does not regard this explanation as plausible.
[77] Ibid at P-79.
[78] Ibid.
During cross-examination, Ms Dreyer gave evidence that her husband was no longer the Secretary of Louise Dreyer OT Pty Ltd and that Mr Dreyer had only been a board member (previously), so he could sign the bank documents because she did not have time to go to the bank. After she gave evidence at the hearing, Ms Dreyer sent to the Tribunal an ASIC company extract issued on 13 September 2021 showing that her husband was appointed as Secretary of Louise Dreyer OT Pty Ltd on 4 December 2019 and ceased as Secretary on 4 March 2021 (being a date falling after the commencement of this proceeding). Ms Dreyer confirmed that this is the primary company she carries her business through, and that she is a director of this company.[79]
[79] Ibid at P-80.
During cross-examination, Ms Dreyer confirmed that she, personally, was the sole shareholder of Louise Dreyer OT Pty Ltd. Ms Musgrove asked Ms Dreyer whether she was aware that a company by the name of Kilimanjaro 78 Nominees Pty Ltd, had a shareholding (in Louise Dreyer OT Pty Ltd). Ms Dreyer said she did not know this. The ASIC company extract issued on 13 September 2021 sent by Ms Dreyer to the Tribunal on the same date records Kilimanjaro 78 Nominees Pty Ltd as the sole shareholder of Louise Dreyer OT Pty Ltd. Ms Dreyer told the Tribunal that she thinks this company was a “trust”.[80] In answer to a question by Ms Musgrove about who had set up the Full Life Occupational Therapy business, Ms Dreyer said her husband had helped her set it up. Ms Dreyer said she was not involved in the setting up of the business/trading names and that was not her area, or her expertise.[81]
[80] Ibid at P-81.
[81] Ibid.
Ms Dreyer said that the “whole thing of the conflict of interest” was “always explained from the beginning”, and it was “never something I tried to hide”.[82] Ms Dreyer refuted a proposition put to her by Ms Musgrove that she had not brought the perceived or real Conflict of Interest to the attention of the NDIA until “sometime in 2021”. Ms Dreyer referred, again, to the letter she said she had given to an NDIA planner. During further cross-examination, Ms Dreyer conceded that an NDIA planner is not a representative of the CEO of the NDIA and does not have the corporate understanding and oversight that the CEO or another executive officer of the NDIA would have.[83]
[82] Ibid at P-81.
[83] Ibid.
Ms Dreyer said she had read the NDIS guidelines on conflict of interest which she said provides that a conflict of interest should be disclosed or displayed to the participant as quickly as possible, and that it was disclosed as soon as possible.[84] Ms Dreyer said that those guidelines did not say that she was required to send a document to the NDIA explaining the conflict of interest. Ms Dreyer sent a copy of those guidelines to the Tribunal on 14 September 2021. Subsequently, Ms Dreyer accepted that it was a serious consideration as to who was to make the OT recommendations and whether there was any direct relationship with the company, or whether the person stood to acquire any personal benefits from the sales.[85]
[84] Ibid at P-81 and P-82.
[85] Ibid at P-99.
During cross-examination, Ms Dreyer was asked about the process for the writing of reports, such as the Home Modification and AT Report and the CCTV AT Report. Ms Dreyer said she had assisted in setting up basic templates for certain devices that people might need, and the individual therapist would carry out the assessment. She said the therapist would “decide for themselves” whether they “feel” it is reasonable and necessary and to “add it to the thing”, or whether they needed to add more research, in which case, Ms Dreyer could “add more research to it”.[86] Ms Dreyer denied that the therapist would cut and paste from a stock-standard report drafted by Ms Dreyer. She accepted that the “research” is “kept the same”. She explained that a template would be used with specific research on a specific device.[87] Ms Dreyer gave evidence that the individual therapist does their own research as well.
[86] Ibid at P-85.
[87] Ibid.
Subsequently at the hearing, the Tribunal asked Ms Dreyer if she had briefed lawyers to assist in preparing the templates referred to above, as the Tribunal considered their contents were akin to detailed legal submissions citing relevant case authorities. This was important in deciding whether this expert had crossed the line in terms of becoming an advocate for Ms Farman. Ms Dreyer told the Tribunal that she had sought legal advice from a South African friend of hers, who had practised law in London previously, “to help write the reports better”.[88] Ms Dreyer said her friend helped her to understand the legislation to make sure that if she recommended something, that it met all the criteria.[89] The Tribunal asked Ms Dreyer whether she had asked her friend to look into all the previous NDIA cases that were listed in the Full Life Occupational Therapy reports, and she said that she had asked her friend to see if “things have been approved before”. Ms Dreyer explained that she had “heard feedback from a lot of participants” that the NDIA had not approved things and she had found that as well. She said there is a whole forum that you can follow on things like that, and she had decided to “be a bit more smarter, trying to really help my clients to get their systems approved, and see what they legally required to get them approved”. This demonstrates to the Tribunal that Ms Dreyer and Ms Vernon have crossed the line from being impartial and objective therapists and expert witnesses, to acting as advocates for Ms Farman in the process of seeking approval for NDIS funding for assistive technology.
[88] Ibid at P-103.
[89] Ibid.
Ms Dreyer gave evidence that she had research databases for different types of technology such as Bellman, Smartglo, Central Alert, Brooks and Visualert.[90] Ms Dreyer said she had about 50 templates prepared for Full Life Occupational Therapy.[91]
[90] Ibid at P-85.
[91] Ibid at P-86.
In an effort to show that she was impartial, Ms Dreyer gave evidence that she had recommended the “Visit Bellman system” for 70 per cent of her clients which is interconnected with the doorbell, fire alarm and a baby cry alarm.[92] Ms Dreyer explained she did not need a template for this, because it fell under the category of “low-cost equipment” and she did not need to submit a report to the NDIA asking for approval of it.[93] Instead, Ms Dreyer said she has a letter for this product.[94] Ms Dreyer said the (Bellman) alarm clock is $650 and the flash receivers are $300 each so there are “low cost options” and may be ordered through Word of Mouth.[95]
[92] Ibid at P-88.
[93] Ibid.
[94] Ibid.
[95] Ibid at P-89.
Ms Dreyer gave evidence that she had 1000 clients on the books and had recommended to 300 of them to have the Visualert system (since 2018). She said the remaining 700 have received the low-cost option. Ms Dreyer said that when she had done her research, she could not find any lower cost options that would have the same outcome as the hardwired system that was of a higher cost.[96] At the hearing, Ms Dreyer said:[97]
Most of the clients who want the Visualert system are clients who approach me directly because they say they've heard of the system and they don't want the lower cost options because they haven't been working for them. So it's out of their lived experience that I go by.
[96] Ibid at P-100.
[97] Ibid at P-101.
Ms Dreyer gave evidence that the cost of the base Visualert product is $7000.[98] When asked how many of the Visualert systems had been approved and installed, Ms Dreyer she said she thought it was “only 75” from her organisation.[99] This means the commissions received from her husband’s company for the sale of the products recommended by Full Life Occupational Therapy are in the vicinity of $115,000.
[98] Ibid at P-101.
[99] Ibid at P-102.
Despite Ms Dreyer’s claim that Full Life Occupational Therapy has recommended the Bellman Visit products in 70% of the assessments undertaken, the Tribunal considers that, on balance, arising from:
(a)the presence of the Conflict of Interest;
(b)Ms Dreyer’s evidence given at the hearing that detailed standard templates (prepared by her and her South African friend), containing research and a substantial degree of legal references and submissions, were used by Ms Vernon to prepare the Full Life Occupational Therapy reports, including the Home Modification and AT Report and CCTV AT Report;[100] and
(c)important factual inaccuracies on the part of Ms Vernon that were included in those reports such as her claims that the Bellman Visit system could not be used in wet areas when this was not clear from the environmental requirements for those products that this was the case as confirmed by Ms Willis, and referring to radiofrequency problems that may arise in the case of a home constructed of brick when this was wholly irrelevant in Ms Farman case, given that she has a weatherboard home (see below in these Reasons for Decision for further detail);
the Tribunal finds that the opinions of Ms Vernon and Ms Dreyer are not impartial and instead, were focussed on a pre-determined outcome primarily based on what Ms Farman wanted (before the assessment was conducted), being that Ms Farman would be supplied with the Visualert System. For this reason, the Tribunal places very little weight on the opinions and recommendations of Ms Vernon contained in the Home Modification and AT Report and the CCTV Security Report.
[100] Refer 143-page template entitled “Form” and marked “V12.0 2021-01-02” – “Assessment template AT” lodged by Ms Dreyer with the Tribunal at the Tribunal’s request during the hearing.

Further, in light of Full Life Occupational Therapy being a registered NDIS service provider and as a non-binding observation, the Tribunal considers that the NDIA may wish to consider whether to refer this matter to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission for further detailed investigation. It seems inappropriate that an NDIS-registered service provider, that is, Louise Dreyer OT Pty Ltd, sought to be paid over $2,000 to prepare an occupational therapy report (using NDIS funds from the participant’s NDIS plan) recommending specific assistive technology that Ms Dreyer stood to receive a benefit from, albeit indirectly, due to her husband’s involvement with the entity who was at the time the sole Australian distributor of those recommended products. Ms Dreyer was aware of this Conflict of Interest and did not proactively disclose it to the NDIA, being the administrator of the NDIS from which the funding was used to pay for the Full Life Occupational Therapy reports and the recommended products (if approved). The Tribunal does not consider her explanation for choosing not to do so as acceptable. The Tribunal regards this conduct by Ms Dreyer and her company as unconscionable.
The Tribunal will return now to a consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative visual and vibrating alerting systems in its assessment of the consideration of s 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act and matters set out in Rule 3.1 of the Support Rules.
Reliability of the power source
The Visualert System is hard-wired to the 240V mains and Ms Farman contends this is more reliable than an alternative system, such as the Bellman Visit System, that is not hard-wired. Ms Farman relied upon the opinions expressed about this in the Home Modification and AT Report prepared by Ms Vernon (using the Full Life Occupational Therapy standard templates). The Tribunal notes that a Quotation issued by Full Life Occupational Therapy on 17 January 2020 states that, “Current legislation in Australian States and Territories generally require smoke alarms to be either hard-wired or have a 10-year lithium battery”.[101]
[101] Refer HTB at page 203.
Mr Willis provided the following information in his report about the power source of the different components comprising the alternative Bellman Visit system (emphasis added in underlined text):[102]
[102] Refer HTB at pages 571 & 571.
Receivers
BE1442 Flash Receiver – Mains powered with internal aaa rechargeable battery backup. This light will indicate green when mains powered, red when on battery backup and flashing red if battery backup is low.
BE1230 Pager – Battery powered by rechargeable or alkaline battery. A short vibration and red LED light appears when the battery is low.
BE1380 Visit Alarm Clock – Mains powered with internal AAA rechargeable battery backup. The clock shows a green LED when mains power is connected. A RED led when running on battery and flashing red when battery is low.
BE1033 Visit Portable Receiver – Battery powered via 4 x C size alkaline batteries. A power supply is available if preferred. Low battery is indicated by a flashing LED on the device.
Transmitters
BE1289 Bellman Visit Smoke Alarm. This model includes a sealed 10 year lithium battery. A low battery signal is sent to any bellman visit receivers at the same time as an audible beep is heard. The user would be alerted to the low battery because of a recurring flash/vibration for the fire alarm on their receiver/s.
Other transmitters – Push Button BE1230, Telephone Transmitter BE1431, Acoustic Door Transmitter BE1411 and Baby Cry Monitor BE1491
These transmitters display a blinking red LED when the battery is low on the transmitter. They are powered by an alkaline battery which in most products would last for 12 months. Note that the BE1411 has shortened battery life when installed in noisy locations – we advise customers to install this in a quieter part of the home eg not the kitchen or living room. We also offer a mains power connection for the BE1411 if the battery life is of concern.
In the event of power loss, Mr Willis states in his report that all components of the Bellman system would operate without power. He states that the BE1442 Visit Flash Receiver and BE1380 Visit Alarm Clock both have a mains power connection with internal backup battery. He said the backup battery would operate for 48 hours if the mains power was unavailable/disconnected. Further, Mr Willis states that all transmitters are battery operated so are not affected by power outage.[103] This evidence was not challenged at the hearing by either party and the Tribunal accepts it.
[103] Refer HTB at page 572.
The Tribunal notes that there were references in the evidence raising concerns that lithium batteries may not last the specified 10-year life span. For those devices using batteries as the power source, the Tribunal notes that all components of the Bellman Visit system give visual notification to the user when the battery life of those devices was low or becoming low (refer to the underlined sections of Mr Willis’s report as set out in paragraph [83]) providing the user with adequate advance notice to change the batteries before they are depleted.
The Tribunal notes that a hard-wired smoke alarm is not an available option using the Bellman Visit system and that it would rely upon batteries as its primary power source,[104] compared to the Visualert System which does offer a hard-wired smoke/fire alarm. Mr Lewkovitz states in his report that hard-wired alarms “may be preferable however this is not due to inherent unreliability of battery-only devices. Rather it is to mitigate against batteries being removed and not replaced e.g. due to false alarms”.[105] The Tribunal accepts this evidence. The Tribunal notes that the BE1289 Bellman Visit Smoke Alarm includes a sealed 10-year lithium battery, and as mentioned above, the user would be notified of a low battery in the smoke alarm by a recurring flash/vibration sent to their Bellman receiver/s, if it was the case that the battery did not last for 10 years. The user may also adopt a practice of replacing them more frequently than every ten years, as suggested by Ms Barry in her report, if they would feel safer by doing so.
[104] Refer to Mr Willis’s Report on page 8.
[105] Refer HTB at page 690.
The Tribunal notes that if there is a power outage, this has the potential to affect the operation of the hard-wired Visualert in the same way as it would affect the mains powered “plug in” components in the Bellman Visit System. However, both systems make provision for back-up internal batteries.
Based on the matters set out in the above three paragraphs, the Tribunal is satisfied that the alternative Bellman Visit system has a sufficiently reliable power source, either by plugging the devices into the mains power, or by battery, or a combination of both. The Tribunal acknowledges that this system will rely upon the user changing the batteries as required (in respect of those components using batteries as the power source), whereas this would not be necessary if they were using the Visualert System. The Tribunal considers this to impose a negligible and irregular impost on the user, given the price differential between the two systems. The Tribunal considers that this requirement of needing to replace the batteries periodically does not render those devices (or the Bellman Visit system generally), unreliable.
In conclusion, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the Bellman Visit System is unreliable due to its power source, or that the Visualert System is more reliable than the Bellman Visit System because it is hard-wired. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Bellman Visit System is a comparable product to the Visualert System and that reliability of the respective systems is a factor that neither weighs for nor against the Tribunal deciding whether the Visualert System is “value for money”.
Smoke/fire alarm notifications while Ms Farman is sleeping
This issue is an extension of the previous issue regarding the reliability of the power source of the components making up each system. Ms Farman contends that the smoke/fire alarm of the Bellman Visit system will not provide her with adequate notification while she is sleeping because the bed shaker (or vibrating pad used under Ms Farman’s pillow or mattress) are not hard-wired, as they would be if she were to use the Visualert System.
The NDIA contends that Ms Farman is currently using the Bellman alerting system and Ms Barry’s Report does not record any complaints by Ms Farman that there have been issues in terms of functionality while Mr Farman and her family are sleeping. The Tribunal acknowledges that Ms Farman did raise concerns about her bed shaker during cross-examination relating to the radiofrequency connection with transmitters. The Tribunal is satisfied this is a matter that can be addressed by appropriate re-setting of the device. The NDIA contends that the Bellman system bed shaker may be plugged into the Visit Clock (or a Visit Flash Receiver), and the clock and flash receiver both have internal batteries which the bed shaker device may draw from, in the event of a power failure. The Manual for the Bellman bed shaker confirms that it can be plugged into all Visit receivers and chargers.
For the same reasons set out above under the heading “Reliability of power source”, the Tribunal considers that the bed shaker is a reliable component of a visual and vibrating alerting system, whether it is hard-wired (as it is in the Visualert System) or powered by being plugged into the mains via a Visit receiver or charger (such as the Visit alarm clock, Visit flash receiver or Visit pager for that matter). Each of those receiver devices have internal batteries in the event of a power failure and coloured light indicators to signal to the user in advance when the internal batteries of the Visit receivers or chargers are low and/or almost depleted (as detailed above in paragraph [83]).
In conclusion, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the Bellman bed shaker is unreliable due to its power source as described above, or that the Visualert System is more reliable than the Bellman Visit System because it is hard-wired. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Bellman Visit System is a comparable product to the Visualert System and that reliability of the respective systems is a factor that neither weighs for nor against the Tribunal deciding whether the Visualert System is “value for money”.
Reliability when using radiofrequency and/or Wi-Fi
Ms Farman contends that the alternative Bellman Visit System is unreliable because it uses radiofrequency and/or Wi-Fi to connect (that is, sends signals or messages between) its various components.
During cross-examination, Ms Farman gave an example that sometimes, throughout the night, she would see that her “bed shaker” was not working and that there had been a “frequency fail”, which she said was something that could happen. She said this makes her worried that it is not working or that she does not know that it is not working.[106] Ms Farman said her bed shaker was “not that old” but that it still had “frequency fails”.[107] Ms Farman said that when this occurred, she would sleep in her daughter’s room.[108] Ms Musgrove asked Ms Farman whether she had difficulty following the instruction manual to “pair the devices”, to which she said her husband would help her with that.[109]
[106] Refer Transcript Day 1 at P-32.
[107] Ibid.
[108] Ibid.
[109] Ibid.
Ms Farman relies upon the Home Modification and AT Report, in which Ms Vernon states that radiofrequency and/or Wi-Fi are ineffective, due to interference in homes that have brick walls, are multiple storey and have large areas where there may be long distances between devices.
The NDIA contends that Ms Vernon’s statement about things that might cause interference are not relevant in Ms Farman’s case, because she lives in a single storey home constructed of weatherboard (a fact that was not in dispute between the parties),[110] and that her home is not overly large.
[110] Refer Home Modification AT Report at page 13 and Transcript Day 2 at P-137.
In the Home Modification and AT Report, Ms Vernon referred to the annexed floor plan for Ms Farman’s home and states, “The size and layout of the home causes difficulty in finding off the shelf products to fulfil her notification needs”. Mr Farman’s home is a standard-sized home with three bedrooms, two living areas, single kitchen, and single bathroom. At the hearing, Ms Vernon accepted this, and described Ms Farman’s home as “probably a medium to small”-sized house. Ms Vernon explained that the house was not open plan and had a lot of different rooms in it.[111]
[111] Refer Transcript Day 1 at P-137.
The NDIA highlighted to the Tribunal there has been no evidence produced by Ms Farman to show that she has previously sought advice or assistance about radiofrequency issues arising, in respect of her use of the current Bellman System. The NDIA also relied upon Mr Lewkovitz’s Report where he states that a number of life critical systems exist, that operate wirelessly using radiofrequency.[112] Mr Lewkovitz cited, as examples, a portable duress pendant or a Personal Emergency Response System (PERS) alarm might be worn by a senior in risk of falls.[113]
[112] Refer HTB at page 689.
[113] Ibid.
In the Home Modification and AT Report, Ms Vernon states that Ms Farman’s current receiver did not work if it was placed too far away from the fire alarm. Ms Musgrove asked Ms Farman how far apart the receiver was from the fire alarm before it would not work. Ms Farman answered this question by stating that the receiver would work if it was placed inside the house and then Ms Farman added, “but that’s only when I’ve got the pager on”.[114] It would seem from Ms Farman’s answer that she thought was being asked about the Visit flash receiver. Based on the product information about the Bellman Visit System there appears to be a misunderstanding by Ms Farman about how her system works in that her pager receiver is an alternative type of receiver (from the Visit flash receiver), through which she can receive signals from the transmitter (that is, the smoke/fire alarm). The Tribunal was unable to identify any product information suggesting that a signal from the smoke/fire alarm must first be received by the Visit pager and before it is received by the Visit flash receiver. However, the Tribunal took Ms Farman’s answer to this question as indicating there were no coverage issues in respect of the transmission of signals from the smoke/fire alarm to the Bellman flash receiver within Ms Farman’s home (or at least, none that Ms Farman identified when she had the opportunity to do so at the hearing).
[114] Refer Transcript Day 1 at P-26.
Regarding Ms Vernon’s assertion that the Wi-Fi in Mr Farman’s home is not stable, the NDIA seeks to rely upon Mr Willis’s evidence that this cannot be an issue in respect of Bellman products, because they do not use Wi-Fi. The Tribunal accepts this is the case for signals sent between the various transmitter components of the Bellman Visit System and the receivers forming part of that system. However, in instances where Ms Farman sets up a connection between her transmitters (that is, the smoke/fire alarm and doorbell), with the Phillips Hue globes and/or her iPhone or Apple Watch, this would require Wi-Fi.
Even if it is the case that some connections, such as those identified immediately above, would rely upon the use of Wi-Fi, Ms Farman gave evidence at the hearing that she does not have any Wi-Fi issues in her home. She said she used it for lots of things and she described it as being “quite good”.[115] This is not the impression the Tribunal got from reading Ms Vernon’s Home Modification and AT Report.
[115] Ibid at P-33.
In the Home Modification AT Report, Ms Vernon states Ms Farman’s Ring doorbell was ineffective due to the reported poor Wi-Fi in her home. Ms Farman said this was right. However, Ms Farman did not definitively confirm there were any Wi-Fi issues in her home. Instead, she referred to her old Ring doorbell being quite good after it was installed, but then it stopped working. She did not say why. She explained that she was given a new Ring doorbell that was “sort of connected to a lamp”. She said it was not connected to her smoke alarm or the baby cry monitor, and that she was not happy with it and wanted “all of the alarms to be in one”.[116]
[116] Ibid at P-34.
Upon exploring this matter further at the hearing, Ms Vernon explained that she had made the statement in her report that Ms Farman had issues with her Wi-Fi, based on the quality of the Skype connection during the functional assessment with Ms Farman, and reports she said Ms Farman had told her about other issues she had experienced. The dropouts Ms Vernon observed during the Skype meeting was but one isolated occasion. The Tribunal accepts Ms Farman’s evidence about this, over the reports made by Ms Vernon, and finds that Ms Farman does not have Wi-Fi issues in her home.
The Tribunal does not accept Ms Vernon’s opinions as contained in the Home Modification and AT Report that reliance upon radiofrequency and/or Wi-Fi “would cause interference”, if the Bellman Visit system was used. The reasons for this include:
(a)Ms Vernon’s erroneous understanding that:
(i)Ms Farman’s house is constructed of brick, instead of weatherboard, being a matter that Ms Vernon accepted, at the hearing, was an error on her part;
(ii)the primary Bellman Visit System (that is, putting aside additional connections with smart devices and the Philip Hue globes) operates using Wi-Fi when, in fact, it relies upon radiofrequency;
(iii)if any connection of the various components of the system does rely upon Wi-Fi, Ms Farman has Wi-Fi issues in home when, in fact, this is not correct, and Ms Farman gave evidence there were no issues with Wi-Fi in her home; and
(b)Ms Vernon has not been to Ms Farman’s home, and was only able to view her home and the existing devices she was using, from the viewpoint of a remote device, which is less than optimal and detracts from the weight that can be placed on an occupational therapy functional assessment that was conducted by Ms Vernon remotely (in this case, from another State);
(c)Ms Vernon did not test any visual or vibrating alerting devices at Ms Farman’s home and did not directly observe the geographical limits to the radiofrequency (or Wi-Fi) coverage in both indoor and outdoor spaces;
(d)Mr Willis’s statement in his report that Ms Farman’s home is of a size that is typical of other homes where the Bellman Visit alerting system had been successfully installed and utilised;[117] and
(e)Ms Barry formed an opinion that the Bellman Visit System was capable of operating effectively in Ms Farman’s home (as detailed in her report calling for certain enhancements, upgrades, and other measures to be taken by Ms Farman such as linking some of the transmitters to her Apple Watch).
[117] Refer NDIA’s SFIC at paragraph [76] and Mr Willis’s Report at page 14.
Based on this evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the alternative Bellman Visit System is an unreliable system based upon the fact that it uses radiofrequency and/or Wi-Fi to send signals between various components of its system. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Bellman Visit System is a comparable product to the Visualert System. The Tribunal considers that reliance upon radiofrequency and/or Wi-Fi when using the Bellman Visit System (coupled with the Ring doorbell system), compared to hard-wired connections in the case of the Visualert System, is a factor that neither weighs for nor against the Tribunal deciding whether the Visualert System is “value for money”.
Interconnectedness of the various components
Ms Farman contends that the Bellman Visit system does not allow multiple alarms and receivers to be interconnected (thereby requiring her to use separate devices for each notification system).

In conclusion, the Tribunal does not accept that the Bellman flash receiver is unable to be used in wet areas as claimed by Ms Farman, Ms Vernon, and Ms Dreyer. From an email exchange between Mr Willis and a representative of the Bellman Visit products’ manufacturer (its Chief Technical Officer), it was confirmed that those products can be used in the bathroom and that Ms Vernon and Ms Dreyer’s understanding of what “non-condensing” meant, was incorrect. The Visit pager has the same environmental requirement stipulations as the Bellman receiver and for this reason, the Tribunal is satisfied that it can also be used in wet areas, provided it is not taken into the shower cabin.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds Ms Farman’s claimed disadvantage of using the Bellman Visit System, over the Visualert System, namely, that she would not have alert coverage in wet areas due to an inability to use the Bellman flash receiver and/or the Visit pager in those areas, is unfounded. The Tribunal considers those two systems to be comparable in this regard.
Coverage and visibility of the flash receiver and pager when outdoors
Ms Farman contends that her current system does not work adequately when she is outdoors, including on parts of her rear decking and when she is hanging out the washing.
At the hearing, Ms Farman said that when she goes outside of her house, she “cannot go too far away”, because the receiver on her pager will not work. Ms Farman said she and her children spend a lot of time outside in the backyard. Ms Farman said that if her youngest is inside sleeping, and she is outside with her other children, she will go back and forth into the house to check, quite frequently, and that her current pager will only operate inside the house.[150] Ms Farman said that her children also sometimes played out on the road, because it is not a busy road. She referred to going out to watch them play in the street and she said her pager would not work at that distance.[151] The Tribunal notes, when making the appropriate comparison, that the external light outlet for the Visualert System is proposed to be situated at the rear of the house, so if Ms Farman is out the front of her home with the children, this system will not provide her with any visual alert.
[150] Refer Transcript Day 1 at P-13.
[151] Ibid P-26.
Ms Farman gave evidence that her current pager would “sometimes” work when she was on the back verandah depending on where she was sitting on the deck.[152] The Tribunal accepts this evidence because although the Manual for the Visit pager stipulates that the coverage is “Coverage 50 – 250 m, 55 - 273 yd. depending on the radio frequency and the characteristics of the building”, it also stipulates that the device is for “indoor use only”.
[152] Ibid.
Ms Musgrove asked Ms Farman why she did not take the flash receiver with her while she was on the deck. Ms Farman responded as follows:[153]
Well, like I was saying before, I don't particularly - I'm not a fan of that flash light and it’s kind of cumbersome having to carry it around. I want the freedom. I mean you wouldn't expect to ask any other person to carry flashing lights around different rooms and all around their garden, just so they can see something. I mean holding that in your hand and trying to do other things why as a deaf person should I have to do that where many other people don't need to do it, it seems a bit ridiculous to me.
[153] Ibid at P-27.
The Bellman flash receiver is 15.5cm tall, 7.8cm wide and weighs 310g. The Tribunal does not accept Ms Farman’s suggestion that this product is cumbersome to carry around. It is small and light, even if the person was handling other objects. The carrying of the receiver in those circumstances is limited to a quick trip to place the device from one part of a standard-sized three-bedroom home to another, or out onto the back decking. The coverage for this device is also stated by the manufacturer to be 50 to 250m, depending on the radio frequency and the characteristics of the building. The area of Ms Farman’s property is 585 square metres. When Ms Musgrove asked Ms Farman whether there was anything that would stop her from placing the flash receiver on a windowsill or a table outside, Ms Farman said she had no response to that.[154]
[154] Ibid.
Ms Farman also said that the flash receiver was not waterproof, and it was run by batteries so it was not something she would take outside. Ms Musgrove suggested to Ms Farman that she was not likely to be outside herself when it was raining and questioned why it would need to be waterproof. Ms Farman reiterated:[155]
…to expect a human being to walk around with something in their hand the whole time as an additional burden and then being expected to carry anything else, you know, I really just want to have the freedom to be able to do what I can like anybody, like all parents who don't have to worry about carrying something outside because I want to be able to see it rather than carry additional things around with me all the time. I'd prefer not to do that.
[155] Ibid.
Ms Barry states in her report that outside of Ms Farman’s home, her functional needs cannot be met by a strobe light alone (that is, the flash receiver) because it would not be visible from all areas of her yard and a “traditional, white strobe light is visually low contrast and difficult to see in day light”.[156]
[156] Refer Ms Barry’s Report at page 20.
The Tribunal does not accept this evidence. The Tribunal notes Ms Farman’s own evidence that the flash receiver was “extremely bright”. Ms Vernon did not test the devices when she undertook her assessment. Mr Willis gave the following evidence, which the Tribunal accepts: “The white light produced by the Xenon globe in the BE1442 is able to be seen without direct line of sight as it reflects clearly of the walls and ceilings of the room. This is effective in daylight or night. The colour of the LED light which advises the user of which alert has been activated is visible from a distance of greater than 5m”.[157] On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal considers that it is likely that that an “extremely bright” white flashing light would be visible to Ms Farman if she placed it within her line of vision while she outside of her home in the yard and within a radius of 5 metres she would also be able to see the coloured LED display.
[157] Refer Mr Willis’s Report at page 17 on the bottom row of the table.
Expected life span
One of the factors the Tribunal is to consider under Rule 3.1(b) of the Support Rules is whether there is evidence that the support will substantially improve the life stage outcomes for, and be of long-term benefit to, the participant. The Tribunal is satisfied that both the Visualert System and the Bellman Visit System would substantially improve the life stage outcomes for Ms Farman for the reasons identified in Ms Barry’s Report, being that they will meet her functional needs arising from her hearing impairment by achieving the outcomes described in paragraph [45]. This consideration also requires that Tribunal to consider whether the support would be of “long term benefit”. This will depend upon the longevity or expected life span of the respective products.
Ms Farman contends that the Bellman Alert System does not provide a long-term solution, because she asserts it has a “limited life span”.
The evidence about what express warranties applied to the Visualert System was inconsistent. Firstly, the quote for the Visualert product does not refer to any express warranties.[158] Secondly, the quote by Beal Electrical to instal the Visualert System does not refer to any express warranty.[159] Appendix 6 to the Full Life OT standard template lodged with the Tribunal by Ms Dreyer (entitled Form and dated 2 January 2021), at page 132, states that the warranty for the control panel was three years and the warranty for the other consumable parts was two years. The Tribunal notes that Ms Vernon states in the Home Modification and AT Report that the Visualert “is durable with extensive warranty of 10 years on most components”.[160] It is unclear what she has based this on. The Tribunal also notes that Mr Willis states in his report that the warranty on the “the Visualert LED Light component” is noted as being 12 months.[161] The Tribunal notes the components of Bellman Visit System come with a two-year manufacturer warranty. The Tribunal considers that the period of the manufacturer warranty provided with any product, including these two systems, does not necessarily determine or reflect the respective expected life spans of those systems, or indeed any product for which an express warranty is offered. The period of the warranty may be influenced by commercial considerations (among other things) such as whether the supplier of the product is in a financial position to honour extended warranties.
[158] Refer HTB at page 201.
[159] Ibid at page 202.
[160] Refer HTB at page 182.
[161] Ibid at page 581.
Importantly, there was no scientific or objective evidence before the Tribunal as to the expected life span of either the Visualert System or the Bellman Visit System (for example, verified information about any product durability testing of those products). The Tribunal considers there is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that the Visualert System has an expected life span that is greater than the expected life span of the Bellman Visit System. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that these two systems are not comparable for this reason and does not consider this to be a factor which weighs for or against a finding that the Visualert System is “value for money”, when compared to the Bellman Visit System.
Subrules 3.1(c) and (f)
The Tribunal will consider the factors referred to in subrules 3.1(c) and (f) of the Support Rules together. Those subrules require the Tribunal to consider whether funding or provision of the support is:
(a)likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term; and
(b)would increase Ms Farman’s independence and reduce her need for other kinds of supports.
The Tribunal is satisfied that both systems would equally offer those two benefits to Ms Farman as her functional needs would be met and she would be adequately alerted to the smoke/fire alarm, baby cry monitor and doorbell in the home, thereby reducing her need to rely upon the personal assistance of others to keep her, and her family, safe in their home. As mentioned above, there is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal for it to make a finding that the long-term benefit to be delivered by the Visualert System is, or likely to be, any greater or less than the long-term benefit to be delivered by the Bellman Visit System.
In conclusion – s 34(1)(c) criterion not met
The Tribunal does not accept Ms Farman’s contentions that the Visualert System has significant advantages over the Bellman Alert System or that the Bellman Alert System has significant disadvantages compared to the Visualert System. The Tribunal concludes that they are comparable systems which, importantly, would deliver the same outcome for Ms Farman at a substantially lower cost.
Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that the “value for money” criterion under s 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act is not met. The Tribunal considers it unnecessary to decide whether the remaining five mandatory criteria under s 34(1) of the NDIS Act are met, because the six criteria under s 34(1) are cumulative.
For this reason, the Tribunal concludes the Visualert System in not a “reasonable and necessary support”. Instead, the Tribunal is satisfied the additional funding that will enable Ms Farman to enhance or upgrade Ms Farman’s current visual and vibrating alerting system to the Bellman Visit System, and funding for some wall mounting accessories, is a “reasonable and necessary support” and should be included in Ms Farman’s statement of participant supports.
Security Camera Support
Ms Farman requests the Security Camera Support because she contends that from inside of her house, it would enable her to see:
(a)footage of any intruders around the home, especially at “bedtime, at night”; and
(b)footage of her children when they are playing in the backyard, or outside the front of her house, for instance, when she is cooking, or in the office working.[162] Ms Farman said that with her CI and hearing aid, she can hear voices when she is speaking to someone face to face. She said if they are speaking behind her, she can hear the noise but does not know what the noise is or where it is coming from, but she is unable to hear the children if they call out to her from outside, and she would not hear them if they had an accident.[163]
[162] Refer Transcript Day 1 at P-36.
[163] Ibid at P-35 & P-36.
In the CCTV AT Report, Ms Vernon recommended a HiLook-branded security camera system, but then provided a quotation for a Provision-branded security camera system, as detailed in paragraph [14(b)] above. On 28 August 2020, Beal Electrical quoted $2,409 for a system comprising the following components:
1 X Cameras as per plan provided which includes:
1 X 4 Channel Stand Alone DVR-1080P (DVR)
1 X SkyHawk Surveillance HDD 3.5” 1TB (Hard Drive)
3 X Camera AHD ProSeries Dome metal 2.5mm 1/3Sensor (CAMERAS)
CCTV SYSTEM IS FROM PRO VISION
Supplier provide 2 years back to base warranty on all Provision-ISR equipment
Power supplies have a 12-month warranty
Ms Vernon also recommended that funding in the amount of $772 be provided to pay for an occupational therapist to travel to Ms Farman’s home (provision made for two hours travel time) to “reassess, implement and train” Ms Farman in relation to this system.[164] This was not pursued by Ms Farman as part of this proceeding.
[164] Refer HTB at page 143.
Ms Barry undertook a three-hour in-person assessment at Ms Farman’s home. Ms Barry formed an opinion, as set out in her report, that Ms Farman needs visual and vibrating alerts to intruders, persons approaching her home and/or to identify persons at her front door. Ms Barry recommended that Ms Farman be provided with the following assistive technology (emphasis added, as it relates to the requested Security Camera System):[165]
(a)All alarms (doorbell, intruder, fire) should include visual and vibrating alerts to smart phone or smart watch.
(b)All alarms should include vibration alert to pillows and/or mattress.
(c)All alarm notifications be visible throughout Elise’s home including bathroom, toilet, main bedroom, and rear deck.
(d)Doorbell should provide real time, remote access to camera/video of person at door.
(e)Intruder alarms should include access to recent time (up to 1 hour) video footage.
(f)External sensor activated lighting proximate to the entry points of the home.
(g)Back-up power supply to fire alarms should mains power supply be interrupted.
(h)Training to use all installed equipment including access to an Auslan Interpreter.
[165] Ibid at page 526.
Ms Barry considers that a 24-hour recording feature is not required, but access to a short period of video recording would be beneficial, for example, when a sensor light is activated by an unobvious source, to allow Ms Farman to check (from inside of her home), the video recording for the stimulus.[166]
[166] Refer HTB at page 539.
Ms Barry described Ms Farman’s property as follows:[167]
The home is located in a residential area, on a no through road/court. The court is accessed via a service road to a main arterial road. The house block is securely fenced on all four sides with the front fence including a gate for vehicle access and the rear and side fences being solid and without access points.
There are neighbouring houses on one side (left when facing from street) and at the rear of the block. There is a vacant block on the driveway side (right when facing from street) of the house.
There are many other neighbouring houses including directly across the street; it is a well-established residential area.
… A security door and wooden door with deadlock are present and in good working order. There a “Ring Doorbell” has been installed. This is operational and connected to Elise’s smartphone. It is not connected to her smart watch and Elise was not aware that such pairing may be possible.
…
Elise and her family have two pet dogs which access the inside and outside of the home.
[167] Refer Ms Barry’s Report at pages 7 & 8.
Ms Barry states that Ms Farman currently has two sensor-activated lights located out the front of and the rear of her home. Ms Farman is reported to have told Ms Barry they are fully operational at night (when required). Ms Barry said those lights can be seen from the study and the lounge room. However, they do not send “real-time” notifications to Ms Farman when she is awake or asleep, and for this reason, Ms Barry considers that these two sensor lights do not meet Ms Farman’s functional impairments.[168]
[168] Ibid at page 22.
Ms Barry states that the Ring doorbell has a recording feature, where video footage can be reviewed after the doorbell is activated, but that this had not been connected by Ms Farman, because “she does not have adequate storage on her smart phone, and she does not have an alternate hard drive to connect”.[169] Ms Barry states that this device provides video surveillance of the front porch and a limited portion of the front yard out to the front fence.[170] She states it covers a very limited area of the home and does not provide coverage to: the front gate, driveway, footpath to the front porch, the open side access from the front to the backyard, rear deck, and the two rear doors, full length windows, 90% of the yard and the blind side of the house. Ms Barry’s states that the Ring Doorbell’s video function only surveys a small area of the home, does not alert Elise overnight, and does not address Elise’s functional impairments.[171]
[169] Ibid at pages 16 & 17.
[170] Ibid at page 22.
[171] Refer HTB at page 541.
Ms Farman said that while her house was located on a no-through road, people did walk through “from the other side”.[172] Ms Farman gave evidence that persons who might be walking in front of her home included recreational walkers including people who were staying in holiday homes in the area, and also those carrying out private delivery services, which she said causes her a “bit of anxiety”.[173] Ms Farman was asked some questions by the Tribunal about her mental health. She said that she had last seen a psychologist in about 2019 and that she had taken anti-depressant medication previously. Ms Farman said she is no longer on that medication and there had been improvements, but sometimes she still has “a bit of anxiety”.[174]
[172] Refer Transcript Day 1 at P-39.
[173] Ibid at P-40.
[174] Ibid at P-40.
During cross-examination, Ms Farman accepted a proposition put to her by Ms Musgrove that the requested Security Camera System would not alert her if someone had opened a door or window to her home.[175] Ms Farman gave evidence that she does not have a functioning security alarm installed in her house.[176] She said there were locks on the door, including a lock on the front metal door (or security door, as was noted by Ms Barry when undertaking her assessment). Mr Lewkovitz, in his report, remarked that “if Ms Farman’s concerns about personal safety are genuine, I would suggest, with respect, that this may not be demonstrated by the current security posture of her residence”.[177] The Tribunal understands Mr Lewkovitz’s point. However, the Tribunal is persuaded by Ms Farman’s evidence at the hearing, supported by Ms Barry’s report, that she is genuinely concerned about her personal security, due to her inability to be able to hear things outside, and would appreciate receiving this requested support to provide with her early notification of any intruders so that she had sufficient time to call the Police if required. Ms Barry explained that it can take longer for a hearing-impaired person to make such a call than a hearing person, due to the additional communications requirements. The Tribunal accepts this evidence.
[175] Ibid at P-47.
[176] Ibid at P-59 & P-60.
[177] Refer Mr Lewkovitz’s Report in his answer to Question 5.

Ms Vernon was asked about which CCTV security systems she had considered as an option(s) in relation to this requested support. Ms Farman said she had considered the Ring CCTV system, but that was all.[178]
[178] Refer Transcript Day 2 at P-155.
Ms Vernon gave evidence at the hearing that she considered a hardwired CCTV to be safer than Wi-Fi, because “it was all connected” and “there was no Wi-Fi component to it”. She said that if the power went out, you could still record and then play it back later when the power was back on. This would seem to move away from the reasons, relating to Ms Farman’s disability, that she wanted this support. Ms Vernon added that Wi-Fi cameras “shortened the bandwidth”, so it was better to go with a hardwired CCTV.[179] When Ms Vernon was asked whether the Security Camera System was reliant upon Wi-Fi, she said, “only the smart phone and the smart watch” and that the “cable went straight to the DVR”. Ms Vernon said that, “as a bonus”, it could connect to a television to give a constant livestream. She said there was also an option to have a separate monitor set up in the kitchen and “that continues live streaming with the internet”.[180] Ms Vernon explained that if the CCTV detects motion outside, it will trigger a notification to Ms Farman’s mobile phone and watch (and also the television if this was set up). Ms Vernon confirmed that the CCTV would not be recording on a 24/7 basis, but was motion activated.
Section 34(1)(a) – whether the Security Camera Support will assist Ms Farman to pursue her goals, objectives, and aspirations
[179] Ibid at P-157.
[180] Ibid at P-157.
Ms Farman’s goals include to:
(a)be more independent within her community so that she can live a good life;
(b)feel safe in her home to increase her independence; and
(c)increase her community and social participation to enable her to increase her confidence.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Security Camera Support would assist Ms Farman to pursue her second goal of feeling safe in her home, thereby, increasing her independence. On this basis, the Tribunal finds that s 34(1)(a) is met in respect of this support.
Section 34(1)(b) – whether the Security Camera Support will assist Ms Farman to facilitate social and economic participation
The Tribunal is satisfied this support will assist Ms Farman to facilitate social participation, by:
(a)enabling her to feel safer to live within a community of other persons by enhancing her ability to call the authorities to protect her and her children from intruders by receiving “real time” notification of any potential intruders (from the safety of being inside of her home); or
(b)if her children have an accident and call out to her, to go to their aid.
Both of these aspects are important to Ms Farman’s role in society as a parent.
The Tribunal concludes that s 34(1)(a) of the NDIS Act is met in respect of the Security Camera Support.
Section 34(1)(c) – whether the Security Camera Support is value for money
Mr Lewkovitz, in his report, states that when he was considering whether the Security Camera Support was “value for money”, he had considered the Provision system, as quoted, and also its role within the provision of overall security of the premises. Upon doing so, Mr Lewkovitz opines that he does not consider the requested Provision system to be value for money, “in isolation from other security management practices of greater importance”.[181] The Tribunal does not accept this evidence and considers the intended purpose for the Security Camera System has been made clear by Ms Barry and also by Ms Farman. It is intended to be used as a notification system to alert Ms Farman to the presence of intruders outside of her home, or if her children cry out to her when they are outside and Ms Farman is inside, in circumstances that her hearing impairment prevents her from being able to hear them and would also be likely to slow her down in her communications to the relevant authorities to seek assistance.
[181] Refer HTB at page 695.
Mr Lewkovitz, in his report, states that typically, a HiLook “kit” comprising four cameras and a recorder can be purchased retail for approximately $700 and “considerably less at wholesale”.[182] There was no objective evidence (such as alternative quotations) provided in support of Mr Lewkovitz’s assertion. He states that installation would take one person one day to instal it, at about $85 per hour. Based on those inputs, he estimates that the cost for a security installer to supply and install such a system would likely to be less than $2,000. Even if the information provided by Mr Lewkovitz is confirmed to be correct, the price differential between the cost of having a HiLook system installed in Ms Farman’s home, and the Provision system Ms Farman would like to have installed, is only about 20%. The Tribunal does not consider the HiLook system to be substantially lower in cost that the requested Provision-branded Security Camera System.
[182] Ibid at page 694.
The Tribunal concludes that s 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act is met in respect of the Security Camera Support.
Section 34(1)(d) – whether the Security Camera Support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for the participant, having regard to current good practice
Rules 3.2 and 3.3 of the Support Rules deal with assessing the “effective and beneficial” criterion under s 34(1)(d) of the NDIS Act. This rule is set out below:
3.2In deciding whether the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for a participant, having regard to current good practice, the CEO is to consider the available evidence of the effectiveness of the support for others in like circumstances. That evidence may include:
(a)published and refereed literature and any consensus of expert opinion;
(b) the lived experience of the participant or their carers; or
(c) anything the Agency has learnt through delivery of the NDIS.
3.3In deciding whether the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for a participant, having regard to current good practice, the CEO is to take into account, and if necessary seek, expert opinion.
Mr Lewkovitz suggests this type of requested support is not likely to be beneficial due to the (insufficient) level of other security systems being used in Ms Farman’s home. The Tribunal does not accept this and considers that the Security Camera System would serve its intended purposed of providing Ms Farman with “real time” notification of any unwanted intruders around her home and would also enable Ms Farman to “keep an eye out” at times when her children are playing outside of her home and Ms Farman is required to be inside the home where, due to her hearing impairment, would not be able to hear them if they cried out her.
In terms of the type of security system to be installed by Ms Farman, the Tribunal notes that Mr Lewkovitz did not raise any concerns about the quality or effectiveness of the Provision-branded system contained within the Beal Electrical quotation, other than to make a price comparison against the HiLook-branded system.
The Tribunal concludes that s 34(1)(d) of the NDIS Act is met in respect of the Security Camera Support.
Section 34(1)(e) – whether the funding or provision of the Security Camera Support takes account of what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide
The Tribunal concludes that s 34(1)(e) of the NDIS Act is met in respect of the Security Camera Support. The NDIA does not contend otherwise. This is not a type of support that Ms Farman’s informal supports would be able to provide a similar outcome to Ms Farman as an alternative to providing the Security Camera Support.
Section 34(1)(f) – whether the Security Camera Support is most appropriately funded or provided through the NDIS, and is not more appropriately funded or provided through certain other general systems of service delivery or support services
Section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act provides as follows:
the support is most appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and is not more appropriately funded or provided through other general systems of service delivery or support services offered by a person, agency or body, or systems of service delivery or support services offered:
(i) as part of a universal service obligation; or
(ii)in accordance with reasonable adjustments required under a law dealing with discrimination on the basis of disability.
The Tribunal concludes that s 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act is met in respect of the Security Camera Support. The NDIA does not contend otherwise.
In conclusion – s 34(1) criteria are met
The Tribunal concludes that the six mandatory criteria under s 34(1) of the NDIS Act are met in respect of the Security Camera Support.
Conclusion
The Tribunal notes that Ms Farman’s statement of participant supports includes general funding of $1,544 (or as updated), for assistive technology. The Tribunal is satisfied that the funding should be replaced with funding for two specific assistive technology supports to enhance and update her current Bellman Visit visual and vibrating alerting system, provide her with wall mounting accessories, and to provide her with the requested newly installed Security Camera System.
Accordingly, the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits this matter to the National Disability Insurance Agency with a direction that it approves a new statement of participant supports for the Applicant, identical to her current statement of participant supports, but which replaces the current approved non-specific funding for assistive technology (in the sum of $1,544, or as updated), with the following supports:
(a) additional funding required to supplement or update the Applicant’s current (NDIS-funded) visual and vibrating alerting system (that is, the Current Bellman Ring System as defined in paragraph [20] above), so that she ends up with a complete a Bellman Visit System as identified by Mr Willis from Word of Mouth Technology in paragraph [24] above with additional wall mounting accessories; and
(b) additional funding of $2,409 for the requested Security Camera Support.

I certify that the preceding 191 (one-hundred and ninety-one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member K. Parker

.........................[sgd]...............................................
Associate
Dated: 2 September 2022

Dates of hearing: 13 & 14 September 2021

Date final submissions received: 26 October 2021

Applicant: In person

Advocate for the Applicant: Ms J Little (formerly known as Ms J Girvan), CODA Auslan Services

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Katrina Musgrove

Solicitors for the Respondent: In-House Lawyer, National Disability Insurance Agency

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL	)
)	No: 2020/5491
National Disability Insurance Scheme Division	)

Dates of hearing:	13 & 14 September 2021
Date final submissions received:	26 October 2021
Applicant:	In person
Advocate for the Applicant:	Ms J Little (formerly known as Ms J Girvan), CODA Auslan Services
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Katrina Musgrove
Solicitors for the Respondent:	In-House Lawyer, National Disability Insurance Agency