GGC (No 2) (Administration)

[2007] TASGAB 3

Guardianship and Administration Board

HOBART

GGC, review of appointment on the application of         AGC, her son

Neutral Citation: GGC (No 2) (Administration) [2007] TASGAB 3

REASONS FOR DECISION

Anita Smith (President)

Kim Barker (Board member)

Paul Mayne (Board member)

25 January 2007

Administration – review of administration order by former attorney – represented person taking legal action against the application through her administrator – order extended for 3 years

Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 section 54, 67

1. On 21 July 2005, the Board made an administration order appointing MLC (“the administrator”) as the administrator for his mother, GGC (“GGC”).  That order also revoked an enduring power of attorney that GGC had made.  The applicant, AGC had been an attorney under that power together with his two brothers; the administrator and DRC who has died.  Reasons for decision were produced following that order.

1. On 16 November 2007, the Board received an application to review the order made on 21 July 2005.  Amongst other allegations, the application alleged that:

   “The assets, property and estate of the represented person are not being administered or protected in accordance with the Act or state law.  The represented person should not be neglected and requires a guardian or advocate.”

1. The applicant sought the alternate appointment of himself or the Public Trustee.

1. The Board had took the following documents into account:

   ·The previous order dated 21.7.05 and the statement of reasons dated 24.8.05

   ·Letter from AGC to the Board dated 20.7.05

   ·Letter from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to AGC dated 22.7.05

   ·Letter from AGC to the Board dated 9.8.05

   ·A history of the matter by MLC prepared for the first hearing

   ·File note dated 19.7.05 by GAB Senior Investigation and Liaison Officer

   ·Copy of Administrator’s annual report filed with VCAT dated 2.10.06

   ·Report of Dr Yohendran dated 20.11.06

   ·Record of proceedings in the Supreme Court dated 24.11.06

   ·Report of the GAB Investigation and Liaison Officer dated 19.1.07

1. The applicant attended the hearing and the administrator attended by telephone.  There were no other witnesses.  At the hearing, the applicant submitted the following documents, none of which related to the grounds of the review:

   ·A copy of an Interim Restraint Order no. XXXX/2005 dated 28.9.05 restraining the administrator from various actions with regard to the applicant

   ·A partly destroyed copy of a letter dated 5.9.05 from the Magistrates Court of Tasmania to the applicant

   ·A copy of a Notice of Interstate Registration of Order no. XXXX/2005 in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria dated 12.10.05

   ·Intervention Order dated 12.10.05 restraining the administrator from various actions with regard to the applicant issued by the Magistrates’ court of Victoria

   ·Copy of a letter from the applicant to DRC dated 25.2.04

   ·Copy of a letter from DRC to the applicant dated 18.3.04

1. The applicant and the administrator agreed that GGC is a person with a disability, who by reason of that disability is incapable of making reasonable judgments about her estate.  They also agreed that she needed an administrator.  The grounds of review were that the administrator has acted improperly and is not an appropriate administrator.  The administrator sought renewal of his appointment.

1. The applicant denied that the application related to the action that the administrator is taking against him in the Supreme Court to have him evicted from his mother’s home.  He stated that he believes that his mother’s wishes are not being respected.  He stated that a large amount of property, personal effects and papers had been removed from his mother’s estate.  He also stated that GGC’s electoral enrolment had not been updated and she still receives mail from Telecom and the Tasmanian University periodical.  He also stated that the services, such as electricity, to GGC’s house have been disconnected.

1. The applicant made numerous general statements about the inadequacy of the administrator’s performance in that role.  However, such statements were not verified with reference to specific errors or inactions despite requests from the Board for more specific allegations.  At best, the applicant’s statements reflected a generalised discontent on his part and a lack of awareness of the day-to-day activities of his mother’s estate.

1. The administrator explained that the removal of papers, personal effects and property actually occurred prior to the Board making and administration order and was satisfactorily explained to the Board prior to his appointment.  He outlined the progress of the eviction action in the Supreme Court and indicated that the parties had appeared to be approaching settlement, but then negotiations broke down after he offered financial assistance to the applicant for resettlement.

1. The administrator also explained that he has been in some negotiation with GGC’s Aged Care providers with respect to an outstanding amount for nursing home fees due to an erroneous assessment resulting in over charging.  That matter has been resolved and an outstanding fee will be paid when GGC’s property is sold or rented.  He indicated that redirection of his mother’s mail is a simple task that he will undertake if such mail is forwarded to him.

1. It is clear that one of the most difficult aspects of the administration to date has been the issue of the applicant’s occupation of GGC’s home and his failure to pay rental or maintain the property to an adequate standard, which has occasioned the need to evict the applicant and sell or rent that property.   However, their actions were clearly anticipated by the Board at the initial hearing.

1. The Board was impressed with the explanations given by the administrator and found his evidence to be credible.  The applicant’s evidence, however, was non-specific, vague and his application appeared to the Board to be motivated more by a desire to defeat the Supreme Court proceedings than by a concern for his mother’s best interests.

1. The Board did not see any need for a guardian to be appointed.

1. The Board was satisfied that the present administrator is acting in the best interests of his mother and her estate.  Noting that the administrator is also subject to a Victorian order, to promote efficiency and to avert the inconvenience of being reviewed again on 21.7.08, the Board believed it was appropriate to renew the order for a further 3 years.

THE BOARD ORDERS

1. That MLC continue as the represented person’s administrator.

2. That the powers and duties of the administrator be those conferred by Division 4 of Part 7 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995.

3. That the order remains in effect to 24 January 2010.

Anita Smith  

PRESIDENT  

Reasons dated: 30 January 2007