GW
[2015] WASAT 79
•1 JULY 2015
GW [2015] WASAT 79
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2015] WASAT 79 | |
| GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | GAA:1696/2015 | 19 JUNE 2015 | |
| Coram: | MS F CHILD (MEMBER) | 1/07/15 | |
| 18 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Public Trustee confirmed as administrator of the estate | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | GW |
Catchwords: | Guardianship and administration Review of administration order Proposal for revocation of the appointment of Public Trustee and appointment of family members Suitability for appointment Ability to perform functions of administrator Past performance of family members as administrators Need for planning for the future needs of represented person for maintenance and repair of his property Family members unsuitable for appointment Reappointment of Public Trustee |
Legislation: | Mental Health Act 1962 (WA) Public Trustees Act 1941 (WA) Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s (4)(2)(f), s 86, s 87, Sch 5, cl 3 |
Case References: | Nil |
Summary | On an application for review of an administration order by which the Public Trustee is appointed plenary administrator of the estate of GW, a man with an acquired brain injury, it was proposed that the appointment of the Public Trustee be revoked and his family members be appointed as administrators. The proposal was made because of dissatisfaction with the fees charged by the Public Trustee and the performance of the Public Trustee as administrator of the estate. Although the Tribunal found that the represented person's family members were well intentioned and cared for the represented person, the Tribunal found that they lacked sufficient skills and understanding of what was required in the administration of his estate and were therefore unsuitable for appointment. The Tribunal determined that it was in the best interests of the represented person that the appointment of the Public Trustee be confirmed. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : GW [2015] WASAT 79 MEMBER : MS F CHILD (MEMBER) HEARD : 19 JUNE 2015 DELIVERED : 1 JULY 2015 FILE NO/S : GAA 1696 of 2015 BETWEEN : GW
- Represented Person
Catchwords:
Guardianship and administration Review of administration order Proposal for revocation of the appointment of Public Trustee and appointment of family members Suitability for appointment Ability to perform functions of administrator Past performance of family members as administrators Need for planning for the future needs of represented person for maintenance and repair of his property Family members unsuitable for appointment Reappointment of Public Trustee
Legislation:
Mental Health Act 1962 (WA)
Public Trustees Act 1941 (WA)
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s (4)(2)(f), s 86, s 87, Sch 5, cl 3
Result:
Public Trustee confirmed as administrator of the estate
Summary of Tribunal's decision:
On an application for review of an administration order by which the Public Trustee is appointed plenary administrator of the estate of GW, a man with an acquired brain injury, it was proposed that the appointment of the Public Trustee be revoked and his family members be appointed as administrators. The proposal was made because of dissatisfaction with the fees charged by the Public Trustee and the performance of the Public Trustee as administrator of the estate. Although the Tribunal found that the represented person's family members were well intentioned and cared for the represented person, the Tribunal found that they lacked sufficient skills and understanding of what was required in the administration of his estate and were therefore unsuitable for appointment. The Tribunal determined that it was in the best interests of the represented person that the appointment of the Public Trustee be confirmed.
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Represented Person : In Person
Solicitors:
Represented Person : N/A
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
Introduction
1 These reasons relate to determination of the Tribunal of an application for review of an administration order made in respect of the estate of GW (represented person).
2 The application was heard on 19 June 2015 and oral reasons delivered on 1 July 2015. These written reasons have been produced from the transcript of the reasons for decision delivered on 1 July 2015, with minor edits for clarity and to remove identifying information.
3 An application was made by MD pursuant to s 87 of the Guardianship and Administration Act1990 (WA) (GA Act) for leave to apply for review of an administration order dated 6 December 2013 by which the Public Trustee was confirmed as the plenary administrator of the estate of the represented person.
4 MD is a representative from Life Without Barriers, an organisation providing services to GW. Leave was granted on 24 April 2015 to the applicant to apply for review on the condition that the review was limited to the question of who should be appointed as the administrator of the estate of the represented person. The matter was listed for hearing on 19 June 2015. The application was referred to the Public Advocate for investigation, and the Public Trustee was asked to provide a report on the current estate of the represented person.
5 At the hearing on 19 June 2015, the Tribunal heard from:
• the applicant;
• the represented person;
• the represented person's mother, BW;
• the representative of the Public Advocate (Public Advocate) all in person; and
• the represented person's brother, KW;
• the represented person's sister-in-law, FW;
• the trust manager of the Public Trustee by telephone.
- The decision on the application was reserved for a decision and the delivery of oral reasons.
6 In making any decision on an application brought under the GA Act, the Tribunal must observe principles set out in the GA Act which provide:
• the primary concern of the Tribunal must be the best interests of the person concerned
• every person is presumed to be capable of managing their own affairs;
• there must be a need for the order;
• an order may not be made if there are less restrictive options to meet the needs;
• where an order is made, the least restrictive option is chosen; and
• the wishes of the person concerned must be ascertained by the Tribunal.
7 Although the grant of leave was on the condition that only the question of who was to be appointed was to be determined, because medical reports were submitted from Dr C, a general practitioner who has known the represented person for 10 years which said that the represented person was capable of managing his affairs, the Tribunal expanded the scope of the review at the hearing. There was also a letter dated 11 December 2014 from Dr R, a consultant psychiatrist from Fremantle Hospital, regarding the represented person. Attempts to have Dr R clarify his report were not pursued by the Tribunal.
8 In respect of the question of whether the represented person is a person for whom an order may be made, the Tribunal considered all of the material on the Tribunal's file.
9 Dr C, in his reports dated 11 November 2014 and 9 December 2014, states that the represented person suffered a major head trauma in a motor vehicle accident in 1975. Dr C describes the represented person's condition as static. He goes on to say that the represented person has been stable 'under the good care from family members'.
10 Dr C, states that the represented person is capable of looking after himself and 'would have no problem managing his finances with help from his mother, and later from [KW], who is younger than him'. Dr R states that the represented person is under his care at Alma Street Centre, is currently stable and well, and has financial capacity to request that KW manage his financial resources. Dr R's report notes that he is aware of the review and states that he understands the represented person's finances are currently managed by an administrator and the represented person wishes to transfer this power to his brother.
11 When the original application was filed for the appointment of an administrator for the represented person in 2007, the Tribunal received a psychiatric assessment dated 18 December 2006 by Dr B which had been obtained by the Health Consumers Council on behalf of the family of the represented person regarding his capacity to execute an Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA). (An EPA had been signed on 13 September 2006 appointing the represented person's brother and mother as attorneys).
12 Dr B is a psychiatrist who reported that he believed that the represented person had:
… suffered a moderately severe residual impairment of his intellectual functions from the serious head trauma he sustained at age 20.
- He reported that the represented person:
… showed a poor awareness of the nature and extent of his estate and that he lacked understanding of the purpose of executing an enduring power of attorney. He placed a very high level of trust in his mother and brother.
14 At the recent review hearing, the represented person's sister-in-law challenged the findings of Dr B, as, in her view, there were difficulties in the represented person understanding the doctor's accent at the assessment.
15 In the course of the previous review in 2011, the Tribunal received a neuropsychological assessment conducted by Dr V in April of that year. Dr V is a clinical neuropsychologist. That assessment reported that the represented person was not well oriented, had difficulty learning and retaining new information, that his capacity to manage and manipulate information was significantly compromised, and that cognitive slowing was evident. Dr V reported that the represented person was:
… quickly overwhelmed when presented with lengthy material.
- She concluded his capacity to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his estate was limited and that he required the ongoing appointment of an administrator. She said that, potentially, a limited order might be able to be made.
16 In respect of the question of whether the represented person is a person for whom an administration order may be made, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Dr V and Dr B to that of Dr C, despite Dr C's long-term contact with the represented person, as his report does not refer to any assessments conducted.
17 Both Dr V's and Dr B's reports refer to detailed assessments conducted of the represented person's functioning and his capacity and, although separated by many years, are consistent in the findings made. The assessments are also consistent with what is understood to have been the represented person's dependence on others for management of his financial affairs since his injury. It is also noted that the represented person has been assessed as eligible for services from the Disability Services Commission and from Life Without Barriers due to the consequences of his brain injury and his consequent need for support.
18 Dr R does not give an opinion regarding capacity of the represented person to manage his own affairs, but rather, on the ability of the represented person to express his wishes.
19 Based on all of the material before the Tribunal regarding the need of the represented person for support and assistance in the management of his financial affairs, the Tribunal finds that the represented person remains a person for whom an administration order may be made, as he is, by reason of his acquired brain injury, unable to make reasonable judgments about his estate.
20 In respect of the need for an administrator of the estate, the Tribunal has considered the history of the orders made in this matter.
21 As noted, the represented person suffered a head injury in a motor vehicle accident when he was 20 years of age. From the material on the original file, he received, sometime later, around $200,000 in settlement of his personal injuries claim.
22 From 2 August 1978, the Public Trustee acted as manager of the represented person's estate pursuant to the Public Trustees Act 1941 (WA). A house was purchased for the represented person in 2002 with funds held by the Public Trustee and the represented person has lived there with his mother and his aunt since that time.
23 The transitional provisions of the GA Act provided that existing arrangements for the management by the Public Trustee of estates of infirm persons or patients under the Mental Health Act 1962 (WA) continued following the enactment and commencement of the GA Act, but that applications could be made for the appointment of an administrator: Sch 5 cl 3 of the GA Act.
24 An application for the appointment of an administrator was filed by FW, the sister-in-law of the represented person, on 14 February 2007 seeking the appointment of an administrator of the estate of the represented person and proposing the appointment of the mother and brother of the represented person. An administration order was made appointing BW and KW as joint plenary administrators of the estate of the represented person on 22 March 2007.
25 The order was made for review by 22 March 2012. The EPA that was executed by the represented person on 13 September was revoked.
26 The Tribunal file for the original application indicates that the closing balance of the Public Trustee's cash account held for the represented person as at 8 March 2007 was $17,299. In addition, according to the application filed, the represented person had just over $1,000 in his own bank account and his house property.
27 In the report submitted to the Tribunal for the original application by the Public Trustee, it was submitted that some consideration should be given to household costs being shared by the represented person, his mother and his aunt, as all lived in the property. At the time, the outgoings of the represented person exceeded his income and it was estimated by the Public Trustee that his capital would be eroded in eight and a half years.
28 An application pursuant to s 86 of the GA Act for review of the order was filed by KW on 9 November 2010.
29 The purpose for seeking review was for the Tribunal to authorise 'gifting' from the represented person's estate to enable the represented person to transfer the ownership of his property to his aunt, MB, so she could apply for a reverse mortgage of $50,000 secured on the property to enable repairs and renovation of the property. The represented person was reported to be too young to apply for a reverse mortgage. KW had already tried to arrange the transfer at Landgate and had paid the stamp duty of $11,000 from his own funds before becoming aware that gifting from the represented person's estate by the administrators was prohibited.
30 The Tribunal ordered an investigation of the circumstances by the Public Advocate for the purposes of the review. The investigation confirmed that the purpose of the reverse mortgage was to borrow $50,000 to effect urgent repairs on the property, including the replacement of a stove, replacement of electrical wiring which had previously caused a fire and which was said to be potentially illegal, repair of a water leak in the space occupied by the represented person, replacement of floorboards, and the installation of security screens as the property had been burgled.
31 The Public Advocate's investigator met with family members and wrote on 25 July 2011 to the mother of the represented person setting out the discussions regarding the income and expenditure of the household. He reported that he had calculated the total annual income at around $56,885 from the three pensions received into the household by the represented person, the mother and the aunt. From the expenditure reported by the mother, the investigator concluded that there should be sufficient funds within the household to plan to undertake a range of maintenance and repair issues.
32 The accounts filed by the administrators with the Public Trustee for the accounting period 22 March 2010 to 21 March 2011 indicated that the represented person had received a pension income of around $18,000 in pension and some $71 in interest in that period. The statement of assets in the accounts filed with the Public Trustee provided for the review record that $2,510 was held 'in trust' in a bank account operated by the administrators and $976 was in the represented person's own account.
33 Based on the figure of $17,299 held by the Public Trustee when the administrators were first appointed in 2007, this indicated that between March 2007 and March 2011, approximately $15,000 of the represented person's funds had been expended. When asked about this in the hearing in 2011, the administrators could not give a full explanation of the expenditure of these funds, but indicated that some of the money had been expended on the removal of large trees from the property and on taking the represented person on a holiday.
34 The report provided by the Public Trustee identifies that the administrators were in the practice of withdrawing cash amounts and disbursing those amounts, which the Public Trustee considered poor administrative practice, no doubt because of the lack of tracking or accountability for the expenditure.
35 The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Dr B that the represented person is not capable of understanding and executing the EPA. The represented person owns a house, and there is with the ownership of that property some formality required in the management of his estate and some complexity in relation to his estate. There is no less restrictive alternative to the management of his affairs other than the appointment of an administrator of his estate.
36 I turn then to the question of who should be appointed the administrator. The wishes of the represented person must be ascertained as part of the principles set out in the GA Act at s (4)(2)(f). The represented person has indicated consistently that he would like his mother and his brother to manage his affairs. This wish is supported in the recent evidence of Dr R.
37 The Tribunal is in no doubt that the represented person would prefer his family members to be appointed in place of the Public Trustee as administrator of his estate. The appointment of a family member as administrator is a less restrictive order to the appointment of the Public Trustee and would therefore be consistent with the principles in the GA Act that an order which is the least restrictive on the person's freedom of decision and action should be made.
38 All the health professionals reports and the report of the Public Advocate reinforce the commitment of family members, especially his mother, to the represented person and their good intentions in relation to the management of his estate.
39 The reasons identified for bringing the application for review and for revocation of the Public Trustee's appointment and the appointment of the represented person's mother and brother, or, as proposed by the Public Advocate at this review the appointment of the represented person's brother and sister-in-law, are set out in the application and were expanded by the applicant and the family members in the hearing.
They can be summarised as follows:
1) the 'unnecessary' fees charged by the Public Trustee, in particular, the fees to be charged if the amount of cash held to the name of the represented person in the Public Trustee is greater than $5,000;
2) delay and lack of response from the trust manager to requests from family members and service providers;
3) dissatisfaction with the quality of the workmanship undertaken by contractors and suppliers engaged on behalf of the represented person by the Public Trustee; and
4) the need for the represented person to have more involvement in the management of his affairs.
40 The key issue is in relation to the fees charged by the Public Trustee. There appeared to be some confusion in the family, and in the applicant and the other service providers interviewed by the Public Advocate and reported in her report, about the fees charged by the Public Trustee to the represented person. The mother of the represented person had been anxious about $6,000 of fees apparently charged to the represented person and had raised this with her other son, KW, and her daughter-in-law, FW, and with the service providers.
41 The accounts provided by the Public Trustee to the Tribunal show a realty fee and a personal administration fee charged to the estate of the represented person. However, the accounts also show that the fees are remitted. It is understood that the realty fee is rebated because the represented person lives in his property, and most of the personal administration fee has been remitted under the community service obligation, as the represented person is a pensioner.
42 There is a fee currently charged, but it is the minimum standard fee, reported to be $10 per month charged to all clients of the Public Trustee. These fee arrangements of the Public Trustee have been explained to the family in the past. More recently, it appears the remission of fees was identified by the Public Advocate's investigator in her recent contact with the family but it appears they were still anxious and confused about it at the hearing.
43 The issue of the level of fees was raised in the hearing, and the brother of the represented person asked the trust manager for details of the fees charged by the Public Trustee 'going back 40 years'.
44 At the time of the hearing, the represented person has $5,056.98 in the Public Trustee's cash account. The trust manager reported at the hearing that as the represented person's cash had, for six days, gone over the $5,000 threshold after which additional fees are charged, the represented person had been charged fees for this six day period. The family members challenged that fees were charged for this period and submit that no fees should be charged to the represented person.
45 The accounts also show there has been expenditure from the represented person's estate including replacement of a hot water system, payment of accounts for electrical work and gutters, plumbing, painting and reticulation. Also, the payment of council rates and a third share of electricity and water are recorded, as well as the purchase of a refrigerator.
46 In an effort to keep the represented person's funds below the $5,000 threshold, FW the sister-in-law of the represented person explained that the family had been contacting the trust manager and making demands for expenditure from the represented person's funds.
47 In the Public Advocate's report at page 4, FW is quoted as saying that the requests had been made for 'silly things' to keep the account low. She said that if she and the represented person's brother were appointed, there would not be any fees and therefore there would not be any stress associated with the administration of the estate. She said that while the Public Trustee was the administrator, the family were 'too scared to save money' because of the imposition of fees after the $5,000 threshold was reached.
48 FW indicated there were' big' items that needed to be done to the house, including that the whole house needed to be rewired, and also curtains and painting were required for some rooms.
Dissatisfaction with delay and lack of response by the trust manager
49 The applicant said that when she and the Local Area Coordinator from the Disability Services Commission had contacted the trust manager about matters on behalf of the represented person's mother, there had been no response to telephone calls and emails.
50 The applicant said there was an occupational health and safety risk in relation to the replacement of linoleum, but there had been a delay in dealing with it. She said that the mother of the represented person had obtained a cheaper quote for the replacement of the linoleum but her choice had not been considered. The applicant considered that the matter had been very poorly handled by the Public Trustee.
51 In response to the criticism of the applicant, the trust manager said that she had over 100 clients with 30 properties and was not able to give an instantaneous response to all requests made on behalf of the represented person, but that she had done her best to respond to the requests made. The trustmanager said that, as the represented person was paying for all household repairs from his funds, expenditure on repairs or other items had to be staggered.
52 The trust manager said that she understood that all of the maintenance issues raised by the family in the past had been addressed. She said that as the represented person was a home owner, she had to be mindful of future expenditure as she considered that he was not in a good financial position and, as there was no other contribution to property costs, there needed to be planning for repairs and property costs in the longer term.
Dissatisfaction with the quality of workmanship
53 Dissatisfaction with the quality of workmanship undertaken by contractors and suppliers engaged on behalf of the represented person was also raised by the applicant. The applicant said that the represented person's mother had raised concerns about repairs and quality of workmanship undertaken by contractors, and had said that a contractor had been rude to her. The mother reported that there was still a rattle in the roof and that a gutter still leaks, both of which had been repaired by a contractor sent by the Public Trustee, and that taps repaired by a plumber continue to leak despite being repaired.
54 Family members questioned why the represented person should be required to pay for unsatisfactory work. There was an issue raised by the sisterin-law as to whether the rattle in the roof could be covered by insurance. It seems there was an insurance claim in August 2014 managed by the Public Trustee following damage to the solar hot water system, but it is unclear whether the roof rattle was in the same area of the roof or related to that damage.
The represented person should be more involved in the management of his financial affairs
55 The Public Advocate submitted that, given the represented person's mother is aged 88, the family members are looking to increase the represented person's independence and ability to manage his own affairs should anything happen to his mother. The submission is that developing his skills and independence could more easily be done if the administration was managed by the family members. It is accepted that this is the case.
56 As the represented person is now accessing services arranged by his brother and sister-in-law, there will no doubt be scope for the development of a range of skills. Liaison between service providers assisting with skill development and with the Public Trustee could also occur as it does with other clients.
57 As the family members and service providers are dissatisfied with the conduct of the represented person's affairs by the Public Trustee, this is a matter that can be taken up with the Public Trustee or with the ombudsman.
58 It is not a role of the Tribunal to involve itself in the day-to-day management of the administration of an estate of a represented person, either by a private administrator or by the Public Trustee. The role of the Tribunal is to identify whether there needs to be an administration order made and who should be appointed as the administrator.
59 Unfortunately, despite all of the submissions made, the Tribunal does not consider that the mother and brother of the represented person or the brother and sister-in-law of the represented person are suitable for appointment as administrators of the estate of the represented person. The Tribunal accepts that the appointment of any combination of the family members would be consistent with the wishes of the represented person and that all of these people are compatible with him.
60 The Tribunal does not consider that the proposed appointees are able to perform all of the functions required in the administration of this estate. It is acknowledged that the represented person's estate is a relatively simple one. As noted before, the only complexity relates to the need to make provision for future repairs to the property. It is said by the sister-in-law, that if appointed as administrators, she and the represented person's brother would set aside funds for that purpose.
61 However, this was not demonstrated in the period when the represented person's brother and mother were appointed administrators between 2007 and 2011. Not only was there no provision made for future property maintenance or repair on the house, the funds held by the administrator for the represented person were substantially reduced in the period. The administrators were not able to substantiate expenditure of around $15,000 of the represented person's funds in that period.
62 It is acknowledged that while the Public Trustee was managing the affairs of the represented person up until 2007, his expenditure was greater than his income. However, the estimate was that the funds would be exhausted in a period of eight and a half years. Between the period 2007 and 2011, the majority of the represented person's funds were expended, which was about half of the period estimated by the Public Trustee.
63 Because the former administrators had not made provision for future expenditure and the funds of the represented person were nearly exhausted when urgent property repairs were required, it was the brother of the represented person who is said to have taken advice from a financial planner and a mortgage broker and to have taken steps to arrange for the aunt of the represented person to secure a reverse mortgage once the represented person's property had been transferred to her.
64 The family members did not appreciate the consequences of the reverse mortgage that when the aunt, who is now in her nineties, died, that the monies borrowed would become immediately repayable. Since neither the represented person nor his family have $50,000 to repay the loan and any accrued interest, his property would have had to be sold to pay out the loan. The submissions made by the family that the aunt would make out a Will providing that the represented person was her beneficiary or would make a statutory declaration as to her intent would not change that outcome.
65 It was only the requirement that the Tribunal authorise the transfer of the property that prevented the transfer and the reverse mortgage being secured against the property. The reliance on the advice from the mortgage broker and the failure to obtain any independent advice illustrates the lack of sophistication of the former administrators, who had not appreciated that there would be an almost complete diminution of the estate of the represented person by the transfer, or given full consideration to the consequences of the reverse mortgage.
66 The attempt to transfer the property and obtain the reverse mortgage reflects the inability of the former administrators to plan for necessary household repairs in the period between 2007 and 2011. Repairs were required but there was no contingency plan to provide for them other than securing of the reverse mortgage. This illustrates the difficulty the administrators had in planning for that type of expenditure.
67 The administrators had not preserved any funds, or any significant funds of the funds transferred over from the Public Trustee to meet any emergency expenditure. An essential function of any administrator of a represented person who is a property owner is to plan for the proper insurance, maintenance and repair of that property. The family members submit, as does the applicant, supported by the Public Advocate's representative, that the family members have learnt from this experience and would not repeat it.
68 It was stated in the hearing that the represented person is now over 60 years of age and so is eligible for reverse mortgage. Although the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be unlikely that this particular option would ever be considered again, the Tribunal remains of the view that the proposed administrators are not suitable for appointment. The perceived need to secure a reverse mortgage on the property was a symptom of the failure to plan for future expenditure.
69 This was not recognised in the period when the represented person was under administration of his mother and brother, nor it is it apparently acknowledged since the administration order was made in favour of the Public Trustee and since family members appear to have focussed on the perceived need to keep the funds under $5,000 to minimise the fees, even when recognising that the house needs rewiring.
70 Although the reported failure of the trust manager to respond to calls and emails from family members of the represented person and service providers is unsatisfactory, this is a matter which should be raised with the Public Trustee. If contact, however, has been made with the trust manager to seek expenditure of the represented person's funds on items which are not required, this will add to the workload of the trust manager and may contribute to the tensions apparent in the relationship between the trust manager and the represented person's family.
71 It is acknowledged that the relationship between the mother of the represented person and the Public Trustee has been strained for many years.
72 In terms of the day-to-day running of the estate of the represented person, both the former administrators acknowledged at the time of the previous review that the mother of the represented person managed the affairs of the represented person as the brother lived at some distance and had little day-to-day involvement.
73 The brother and the sister-in-law of the represented person live in Geraldton and their evidence at the last hearing was that the represented person's brother does not travel to Perth frequently. It is the case that the primary role in the management of the represented person would again fall to the mother of the represented person if a family appointment was made.
74 There is a further difficulty identified in the Public Advocate's report about potential damage to family relationships, which would be counter to the obligation on the Tribunal to preserve family relationships. This relates to family members potentially challenging decisions of the mother regarding expenditure. The sister-in-law rejected this contention. Even if the Tribunal was satisfied that the brother and the sister-in-law of the represented person had the requisite skills to manage the estate, the Tribunal determines that there would be strains placed on the relationship with the represented person's primary carer his mother if, for example, as administrators, they asked the mother and the aunt of the represented person to consider making contributions to housing costs in an effort to provide a contingency fund for future property repairs.
75 The role the represented person's mother has played in the represented person's life was outlined in the hearing, in particular her importance to the care of the represented person at a time when his behaviours were particularly challenging. The mother of the represented person made considerable sacrifices, in particular her willingness to remain living in the metropolitan area rather than her preference to live in the country to enable the represented person to access services. Her commitment and sacrifice cannot be understated.
76 The represented person's mother previously managed all aspects of the represented person's care, but is now accepting services for the represented person recently arranged by the brother and the sister-in-law, and it appears that some planning has been initiated for the future. That future planning will require that proper consideration of the need for regular repair and maintenance on the property, and some provision for urgent replacement of essential items be undertaken.
77 If proper planning is undertaken, it may be the case that the represented person can continue to live, with the proper supports, in his own home and in the community in which he is familiar, for some years to come. The represented person is a relatively young man, and considerable planning needs to be undertaken to ensure his best interests are protected both now and in the longer term.
78 Despite the criticisms and deficits in the provision of the service by the Public Trustee, it remains, in the view of the Tribunal, in the best interests of the represented person that his affairs be managed by an independent administrator who can give proper consideration to planning for future expenditure including the possibility of contribution to housing costs from the represented person's mother and aunt to support that expenditure.
79 That issue would need to be sensitively handled and the assistance of the Disability Services Commission or Life Without Barriers to explore how this could be done to minimise the fees to the represented person should be undertaken.
80 The orders are confirmed for a period of five years. While the Tribunal acknowledges the hope for increasing independence of the represented person, given the length of time his affairs have been managed by others and the report of the stability of his acquired brain injury, the Tribunal determines that these orders will be required for at least a further five years.
Orders
81 The orders made on review, that the order which appoints the Public Trustee as administrator, is confirmed as follows:
1. The Public Trustee of 553 Hay Street, Perth, Western Australia is appointed plenary administrator of the estate of the represented person with all the powers and duties conferred by the Act.
2. The administrator is authorised to expend up to a total amount of $600 per annum on gifts on behalf of the represented person.
3. This order is to be reviewed by 1 July 2020.
- I certify that this and the preceding [81] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MS F CHILD, MEMBER
0
0
3