HFT (Review Administration)
[2012] TASGAB 39
•16 November 2012
GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION BOARD
HOBART
HFT – Application to review an Administration Order
HFT (Review Administration) [2012] TASGAB 39
REASONS FOR DECISION
Lindi Wall (Chair)
Date of hearing: 16 November 2012
Review Administration – review of order – lacks the ability to make reasonable financial judgments
Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 s. 3, 51(a), 51(1)(b), 67(a),
This is a review, pursuant Section 67(a) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (“the Act”) of an administration order for HFT, hereinafter referred to as the ‘represented person’. The order commenced on 20 November 2009 and, unless continued, will expire on 19 November 2012.
The represented person is a 49 year old single man, a disability support pensioner who lives alone in his unit in North Hobart.
The review was heard in Hobart on 16 November 2012. The hearing was attended by:
The represented person
Lee Perry (Compliance Officer for the Board)
NT (brother)
James Neilson (Public Trustee)
Louise King (Anglicare)
Does the represented person have a disability?
The Board found that the represented person has a disability for the purposes of section 3 and section 51(a) of the Act. The Health Care Professional Report (“HCPR”) by consultant psychiatrist Dr. Peter Sharpe dated 26 October 2009 disclosed a diagnosis of chronic schizophrenia of more than twenty years duration. As a result of this the represented person experienced impairment of his planning and reasoning skills. This diagnosis was not challenged. An email dated 14 November 2012 from general practitioner, Dr. Roger Cox, confirmed the diagnosis of schizophrenia and advised that his condition had not changed significantly in the ten years he has known him.
Does the represented person lack capacity to make reason judgments?
According to the HCPR in 2009, the represented person’s disability impaired his planning and reasoning skills to the extent that he was unable to manage his money or control his spending. It had also left him demonstrably vulnerable to financial exploitation by acquaintances and he had in fact been made bankrupt in July 2009. His case manager had tried to assist him with managing his money for some seven years without success. The represented person agreed at that time that he needed help to manage his money and approved of the appointment of the Public Trustee.
Dr. Cox’s email did not address the question of capacity specifically but a status quo regarding the represented person’s ability to make reasonable decisions was inferred by the Board from the fact that the disability remained static.
The three annual reports of the Public Trustee provided to the Board advice that the represented person has been actively involved in discussions regarding his finances but he has often proved unable to manage even the $40 per week allowance he receives. The 2011 report noted that he could not resist spending it on cigarettes when he already had overdue accounts at the news agency for cigarettes. Grocery shopping remained a problem and he struggled to provide himself with food items without support from Anglicare. The 2012 report advised that significant support has been required from Anglicare and Langford Support Services who have provided both support and access to food when money was tight.
The Board was satisfied that the represented person, by reason of his disability, lacks the ability to make reasonable judgments for the purposes of section 51(1)(b) of the Act.
The represented person’s wishes
The represented person expressed the wish to manage his own finances and did not want the Public Trustee to be reappointed. He acknowledged that administration had helped him but he felt he did not need it now. He conceded he still had difficulties in resisting requests for money from ‘churches’ but stated that he had just resolved the issue of a recent ‘donation.’
Is there a need for an administrator?
Through discussions with the represented person and his sister, who assists him financially, the Public Trustee has agreed to make budgetary changes on a trial basis with a view to increasing his financial understanding and independence. Mr. Nielson believed that the represented person could have the ability to manage some funds with help. However, Ms. King noted that it is unknown whether he would revert to giving money away. Until he is able to demonstrate a reasonable capacity regarding his money, the bulk of his expenses will need to be paid, ensuring his accommodation, grocery vouchers and cigarette invoices are paid and that his money is protected from his susceptibility to exploitation.
Apart from the represented person’s views, there was broad agreement with the Public Trustee’s opinion that there remains a continuing need for an administrator because of his precarious and variable mental state and because he remains vulnerable to others.
The Board was satisfied on the basis of the evidence from the Public Trustee and Anglicare that the need for an administration order remains and that it should continue. The represented person has demonstrated that he cannot always manage even his modest allowance without significant help and without an administrator his needs would not be provided for and he would remain vulnerable to giving away his money.
The Board recognizes the represented person’s wish to have financial independence and notes the intention of all concerned to work collaboratively towards this goal. However, unless and until he is able to demonstrate by way of this planned increase in his financial autonomy, that he can make reasonable decisions about his money, it is in his best interests that the administration order continues. No less restrictive alternative was proposed or available.
THE ORDER
That The Public Trustee be appointed as administrator of the estate of the represented person.
That the powers and duties of the administrator be those conferred by Division 4 of Part 7 of the Act.
That the order remains in effect until 15 November 2015.
Lindi Wall
MEMBER
20 December 2012
0
0
0