LPDZ and Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS)
[2025] ARTA 1988
•2 October 2025
LPDZ and Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1988 (2 October 2025)
Applicant:LPDZ
Respondent: Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency
Tribunal Number: 2024/1743
Tribunal:General Member A Colvin
Place:Brisbane
Date:2 October 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits this matter to the Respondent with directions that:
1.A new statement of participant supports (SOPS) be approved for the Applicant, and that the following reasonable and necessary supports be included in the SOPS, as funded under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits as updated from time to time (unless otherwise stated):
(i) 2 hours per year for 2 sessions of hand occupational therapy for review and assessment of ring splints;
(ii) $2,300 over 12 months for funding of consumables, low-cost assistive technology or equipment that are NDIS supports, to be used flexibly to facilitate the purchase of:
a. ring splints
b. easyholds
c. adaptive eating utensils
d. compression gloves
e. the once-off purchase of a body braid for $620
f. the once-off purchase of a laundry raiser for $600.
(iii) all other reasonable and necessary supports provided in the Applicant’s plan commencing 21 March 2025 (excluding any one-off assistive technology support(s) already used) in other budgets not mentioned at paragraph (ii) be replicated for a period of 12 months.
2.The reassessment date be 12 months after the supports listed at paragraph [1] above are included in a SOPS.
................[SGD]..................
General Member A Colvin
Catchwords
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME – National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) – consideration of section 34 – reasonable and necessary supports – relocation costs – complex bathroom modifications – zip filter tap – laundry raiser – washing machine – consumables.
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth)Cases
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 60
National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79
Mills and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 1410
FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 114
LFKZ and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 558DRVV and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 158
Secondary Materials
NDIS – Operational Guidelines – Reasonable and Necessary Supports
NDIS – Operational Guidelines – Home ModificationsStatement of Reasons
BACKGROUND
LPDZ is an adult participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). She resides with her husband and other family members. She was granted access to the NDIS based on impairments arising from hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS). As an NDIS participant, she has a plan that includes a statement of participant supports (SOPS). This review is about whether funding for additional supports should be included in the SOPS in that plan.
LPDZ sought funding for specialised hand occupational therapy, bathroom modifications, a laundry raiser, a kitchen zip filter tap, and 20 supports that are consumables or low-cost assistive technology (AT). She also sought reimbursement for the purchase cost of a washing machine, and warranty and delivery fees for that washing machine. She also sought reimbursement of costs incurred in selling her former home, purchasing her current home, and relocating to her current home. These expenses included building and pest inspections, real estate agent fees, legal fees and disbursements, stamp duty and removalist fees.
On 1 September 2023, a delegate of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the National Disability Insurance Agency (Agency) approved a SOPS in a plan for LPDZ (the 2023 plan). That decision was affirmed on internal review on 13 March 2024.
LPDZ applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on 20 March 2024. From 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (Tribunal). Applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT.[1]
[1] Transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024.
The hearing took place by videoconference on 25, 26, 27 and 28 August 2025. The Agency provided an updated Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions (SFIC) on 22 August 2025 and a draft order after the hearing concluded. LPDZ also provided extensive written submissions.[2]
[2] Including at A21 and Exhibits 3 and 4.
Documents available to the Tribunal included:
·a joint hearing bundle (Exhibit 1):
·a report by NS, occupational therapist (Exhibit 2)
·a 40-page document provided by LPDZ dated 19 August 2025 in response to an occupational therapy report (Exhibit 3)
·a 3-page document provided by LPDZ dated 24 August 2025 in response to the Agency’s updated SFIC (Exhibit 4)
·a letter by BA, occupational therapist, dated 3 July 2025 (Exhibit 5)
·LPDZ’s one-page document headed ‘Moving costs breakdown’ (Exhibit 6)
·an invoice from MiniMovers numbered 1253077 (Exhibit 7)
·a report by MK, physiotherapist, dated 14 March 2025 (Exhibit 8)
·an email from LPDZ’s husband dated 20 January 2024 forwarding a Bank of Queensland email (Exhibit 9)
·LPDZ’s 14-page updated list dated 26 August 2025 headed ‘Consumables’ (Exhibit 10)
·an invoice from Good Guys (Exhibit 11)
·MK’s CV (Exhibit 12).
THE DECISION UNDER REVIEW
Following the decision made on 1 September 2023, affirmed on internal review on 13 March 2024, the CEO of the Agency made a further decision dated 21 March 2025. The document is expressed as a ‘new plan’ starting on 21 March 2025 with a reassessment date of 20 September 2025 (the current plan).[3] In its SFIC the Agency described the decision dated 21 March 2025 as a decision to vary LPDZ’s plan under section 47A of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act (NDIS Act). However, the document itself is expressed to be a new plan.
[3] R2.
The effect of the decision dated 21 March 2025 is that the present application for review is taken to be an application for review of the decision to dated 13 March 2024 (that is, the SOPS in the 2023 plan) and the decision to approve the SOPS in the current plan.[4]
[4] Subsection 103(2) of the NDIS Act.
ISSUES
LPDZ contended that she should be refunded for the following expenditure:
·$90,568.01 to reimburse costs associated with selling her former home, purchasing her current home, and moving to her current home including building and pest inspection costs, real estate agent fees, legal fees and disbursements, stamp duty and removalist fees (relocation costs);
·$1,229 as low-cost assistive technology to reimburse her for the purchase of a washing machine and for the cost of a warranty and delivery for that machine (washing machine costs).
LPDZ also contended that a new five-year plan should be created and that the SOPS in that plan should include funding for the following supports, in addition to those in the current plan:
·specialised hand occupational therapy for 15 hours over 24 months (7.5 hours per year) (specialised hand occupational therapy);
·$59,351 to fund complex home modifications to the bathroom in her current home (bathroom modifications);
·$6,670 of funding for a zip filter tap in her kitchen (zip filter tap);
·$3,400 of funding for a laundry raiser (custom-built laundry raiser); and
·$14,481.50 over five years for 20 items that are consumables or are otherwise low-cost assistive technology or adaptive equipment (the requested consumables).
LPDZ had previously sought funding in the SOPS in her plan for the items below. She withdrew that request at the commencement of the hearing:
·Oral B electric toothbrush
·Oral B refills
·a heat cape
·Activflex aloe menthol arthritis gel
·aloe vera physiotherapy gel
·elastic no-tie laces
·a Sharkskin rashie
·a Woolworths subscription.
At the hearing, the Agency contended that a two-year plan should be created. It submitted that none of the supports sought by LPDZ were reasonable and necessary supports, other than conceding that additional funding should be included in the SOPS in the new plan for specialised hand OT (though for fewer hours than LPDZ sought) and that there should be an increase in the funding in the SOPS for consumables to $2,400 for the first year of the plan, to account for a laundry raiser and other items.
After the hearing, the Agency provided a draft order for 12 months of funding. Regarding specialised hand occupational therapy, it proposed that the SOPS should allow two hours per year for two sessions of hand occupational therapy for review and assessment of ring splints. It also proposed that the plan provide $2,300 for funding of consumables, low-cost assistive technology or equipment that are NDIS supports, for the purchase of:
·ring splints
·easyholds
·adaptive eating utensils
·compression gloves
·$620 for the once-off purchase of a body braid every 5 years
·$600 for the once-off purchase of a laundry raiser.
THE LAW
The legislative framework
The statutory provisions relevant to this application for review are found within the NDIS law, including:[5]
·the NDIS Act;
·the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Cth) (Supports Rules);
·the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth) (Miscellaneous Provisions Rules); and
·the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth) (NDIS Supports Transitional Rules).
[5] The statement of the law that follows largely adopts the summary in Mills and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 1410.
The Agency also issues Operational Guidelines. The Tribunal is not bound to follow Operational Guidelines issued by the Agency but, in the absence of any statutory indication to the contrary, any lawful executive policy enacted to guide the exercise of a statutory power is a relevant factor for the Tribunal to take into account in performing its review task.[6] Operational Guidelines considered in the present matter are published by the Agency on its website,[7] and include guidelines on Reasonable and Necessary Supports and on Home Modifications.
[6] Re Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs(No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.
[7] Webpage: ourguidelines.ndis.gov.au
The 2024 Amendments
The NDIS Act was amended by the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) (Amending Act) on 3 October 2024. This is after LPDZ applied to the Tribunal, and after she incurred expenses that she now wants reimbursed, including washing machine costs and relocation costs. However, if, because of the Tribunal’s decision in these proceedings, the SOPS in the 2023 plan or the current plan are varied, the variation will occur after 3 October 2024. The effect of Item 129 in Part 3, Schedule 1 of the Amending Act is that the Tribunal can only vary the SOPS if section 34 of the NDIS Act, as amended by the Amending Act, is met.
Approving SOPS in participants’ plans
Section 3 of the NDIS Act sets out the objects of the NDIS Act. Sections 4 and 5 of the NDIS Act set out general principles guiding actions under the NDIS Act, and sections 17A and 31 of the NDIS Act set out principles that relate to participation in the NDIS and plans.
If a person becomes a participant, under section 32 of the NDIS Act the CEO must facilitate the preparation of a plan for the participant. LPDZ’s plan is an ‘old framework plan’. For those plans, section 33 of the NDIS Act sets out the matters that must be included in a participant’s plan. A plan must include a statement of the participant’s goals and aspirations. It must also include a SOPS, prepared with the participant and approved by the CEO. The SOPS in a participant’s plan must specify, among other things, ‘the reasonable and necessary supports (if any) that will be funded’ under the NDIS.[8]
[8] Paragraph 33(2)(b) of the NDIS Act.
When approving a SOPS in a participant’s plan, the CEO must comply with the mandatory requirements contained in subsection 33(5) of the NDIS Act. One of the requirements in subsection 33(5) is that the CEO ‘be satisfied as mentioned in section 34 in relation to the reasonable and necessary supports that will be funded’: paragraph 33(5)(c) of the NDIS Act.
Subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act deals with ‘reasonable and necessary supports’:
34 Reasonable and necessary supports
(1) For the purposes of specifying, in a statement of participant supports, the general supports that will be provided, and the reasonable and necessary supports that will be funded, the CEO must be satisfied of all of the following in relation to the funding or provision of each such support:
(aa)the support is necessary to address needs of the participant arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements (see section 24) or the early intervention requirements (see section 25);
(a)the support will assist the participant to pursue the goals, objectives and aspirations included in the participant’s statement of goals and aspirations;
(b)the support will assist the participant to undertake activities, so as to facilitate the participant’s social and economic participation.
(c)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;
(d)the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for the participant, having regard to current good practice;
(e)the funding or provision of the support takes account of what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide;
(f)the support is a NDIS support for the participant.
Note: For the purposes of paragraph (aa):
(a)the time at which the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements need to be met is the time the CEO decides to approve the statement of participant supports; and
(b)a participant’s disability support needs arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements may be affected by a variety of factors, including environmental factors or the impact of another impairment in relation to which the participant does not meet either of those requirements.
The matters set out above in subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act are more than mandatory considerations. They are more in the nature of criteria that the decision‑maker must be positively satisfied about on the material.[9]
[9] National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79 at 201.
The Supports Rules
When approving SOPS in a participant’s plan the Supports Rules are relevant. Among other provisions in those rules, rule 5.1 provides that a support will not be provided or funded under the NDIS if it is ‘not related to the participant’s disability’ or relates to ‘day-to-day living costs (for example, rent, groceries and utility fees) that are not attributable to a participant’s disability support needs’.
The Miscellaneous Provisions Rules
The Miscellaneous Provisions Rules are also relevant. Rule 7 imposes an additional requirement, that the support is most appropriately funded through the NDIS and not through other systems or bodies as part of universal service obligations or in accordance with reasonable adjustments required under laws dealing with discrimination.
NDIS Supports
Paragraph 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act requires the CEO to be satisfied that the support is ‘a NDIS support’ for the participant. Section 10 of the NDIS Act defines ‘NDIS support’. The effect of that section, in essence, is that a support is an NDIS support if it is declared by rules to be an NDIS support, provided that rules have not declared that the support is not an NDIS support, and provided that the support is not sexual services, alcohol, or illicit drugs. The NDIS Supports Transitional Rules declare certain items to be NDIS supports and certain items to not be NDIS supports.
In FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency[10] the Tribunal set out the steps in determining whether a support is an NDIS support. The first step is to determine if the requested support is of a character that falls within the scope of a category of support specified in column 1 of the Table to Schedule 2 of the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules by reference to the description of supports that fall within the scope of that category contained in column 2 of the Table. Only if the support does not fall within Schedule 2 is it necessary to consider whether it falls within Schedule 1.
[10] [2025] ARTA 114.
The following provisions in Schedule 2 of the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules are particularly relevant in the present matter.
Item 1 in Schedule 2 deals with ‘Day‑to‑day living costs — accommodation and household’ and includes the following in column 2:
(a) rent, rental bonds, home and property deposits, stamp duty, mortgage repayments, and strata fees;
…
(i) standard household (including garden) items, appliances, tools and products;
(j) standard furniture, fixtures or fittings.
Item 2 in Schedule 2 deals with ‘Day‑to‑day living costs — finance and payments’ and includes the following in column 2:
(h) legal costs;
…
(l) debts, liabilities, loan repayments, buy now pay later payments, and taxes.
Item 3 in Schedule 2 deals with ‘Day‑to‑day living costs — food and groceries’ and includes the following in column 2:
(a) groceries including all food, beverage, cleaning, household and health products;
THE EVIDENCE
The Tribunal heard oral evidence from LPDZ and her physiotherapist, MK. The evidence that MK gave was primarily directed to the requested consumables. For the remaining supports in issue, LPDZ relied on documents completed by the following, none of whom gave oral evidence:
·her previous occupational therapist, TH,
·her current occupational therapist, BA, and
·an occupational therapist with qualifications in hand therapy, LG.
NS also gave oral evidence. She is an independent occupational therapist engaged by the Agency. NS’ opinion was based on a review of documents only. She did not assess LPDZ in person or LPDZ’s home.
It is necessary to first comment generally on two issues that arose in relation to the evidence. The first issue is the weight that should be given to conflicting opinions where NS’ opinion is based on a document review, but where the health professionals LPDZ relied on did not give oral evidence. The second issue is the reliability of LPDZ’s evidence.
The weight to be given to conflicting opinions
NS’ evidence was that a face-to-face assessment can be helpful, but that even when she had undertaken a face-to-face assessment, she often relied almost solely on file reviews in forming her opinion. However, I acknowledge the value of an in-person assessment and have had regard to that in the weight given to the opinion of NS.
The difficulty though with the written opinions of TH and BA is that the material they provided is extensive and relates to multiple supports, some of which are complex and expensive supports (such as the proposed bathroom modifications). The material completed by TH for example, includes the following documents:
·Functional Capacity Assessment dated 9 March 2023;[11]
·Functional Capacity Assessment dated 21 November 2023;[12]
·Letter of support dated 12 February 2024;[13]
·Occupational Therapy Support Letter dated 20 May 2024;[14]
·‘Complex bathroom modifications’ document completed on 20 June 2024;[15]
·‘Complex Home Modification Assessment Template’ dated 8 July 2024;[16]
·‘Assistive Technology Support Letter’ dated 30 September 2024;[17] and
·‘Assessment Template – minor home modifications’ dated 30 September 2024.[18]
[11] T4.
[12] T1F.
[13] T1G.
[14] A4.
[15] A6.
[16] A8.
[17] A10.
[18] A11.
There was no opportunity to clarify or test the opinions of TH and BA in oral evidence. That was important given that the reports and recommendations on their face often warranted clarification, the factual basis for the opinions at times did not accord with LPDZ’s own evidence, and NS had raised alternative, more cost-effective solutions. These issues are discussed below in relation to each support where relevant.
The reliability of LPDZ’s evidence
A further issue arose in relation to the reliability of LPDZ’s own evidence. That was relevant in assessing LPDZ’s own evidence but also whether reliance could, in turn, be placed on expert opinions that were premised on her engagement in assessments and her self-report of impairment.
MK’s oral evidence was that she had treated LPDZ over an extended period and that LPDZ was very consistent and reliable in her reporting, that MK was not aware of any inconsistency in her presentation, and that in therapy LPDZ generally pushed herself resulting in symptoms afterwards.
NS’ oral evidence and report was in stark contrast to this. In her report, for example, in discussing supports related to self-care, she said:[19]
The problem with (LPDZ) is that she has presented in a variety of ways, and from the file review demonstrates she is an unreliable witness. I am also concerned that she has not considered or using low or no cost alternatives or reporting the common problems I have heard, when people cannot really do it themselves. In short, her presentation is inconsistent to the condition she has, and her demands are more in the range of “luxury items” instead of practical solutions for functional problems. [sic]
[19] Ex 2 at page 11.
In her oral evidence, NS said that it stood out to her in conducting the file review that there were inconsistencies and changes in LPDZ’s presentation that did not make clinical sense to her. She did not consider those changes or inconsistencies were explained by fluctuations in LPDZ’s condition or changes in the supports available at different times to LPDZ. Her evidence included the following opinions:
·If LPDZ was unable to sit in a shower chair due to symptoms, NS would expect that to be present all the time. It was inconsistent with evidence that LPDZ drove a car, which involved a similar sitting position.
·LPDZ was reportedly unable to shower and required a walk-in bath but, functionally, bathing is harder than showering. A walk-in bath is very unusual and extremely expensive while there are cheaper options that are standard care for many people with acute and chronic conditions.
·LPDZ was reportedly unable to twist her wrist, but the same action is involved in driving a car. When driving, the action is consistent (since one hand must always be on the steering wheel) and repetitive, and involves forces of between 1-2kg, and in ‘crazy’ driving situations the forces can be 30-40kg.
·LPDZ had reported lower limb issues, then reported no issues with her lower limbs, yet was able to do step tests and had chosen to move to a two-storey home with stairs. Stairs are usually one of the highest levels of mobility tasks. This did not paint a consistent picture.
·One-minute LPDZ had lower limb problems and now it is all affecting her upper limbs and is actually an upper limb condition, but she was demonstrating all the way through that she required ‘all this other help’. That was a ‘massive red flag’ that it was being faked.
Regarding NS’ comment that LPDZ was demanding ‘luxury items’, it is important to acknowledge that LPDZ applied for funding for additional supports, as she is entitled to do under the NDIS Act, and for each of those supports she could point to expert evidence recommending that support. The NDIS Act sets out criteria to determine whether the supports requested by a participant are reasonable and necessary, which include whether a support represents value for money, and the task for the Tribunal is simply to assess each request against those criteria.
As to the reliability of LPDZ’s evidence, I make no general finding about this, or the reliability of reports premised on her self-report and engagement in assessments. Instead, the issue is discussed below if it is directly relevant in relation to a support.
CONSIDERATION
At the time of the hearing, LPDZ resided with her husband and other family members in a two-storey home. LPDZ was not employed. Her support workers attended her home for two hours/day from Monday to Friday for support with domestic tasks and provided additional support hours after that. LPDZ also received informal support from her husband and another family member. Approximately one day each week LPDZ’s husband worked from home. He was also regularly away from home for a few days at a time.
LPDZ’s goals
LPDZ’s goals, set out in the current plan, included to:[20]
·pursue hobbies (which included cooking) and increase her social and community participation;
·have modifications done to her home that incorporated ergonomic design that would ensure her safety and independence into the future; and
·increase her physical, mental, emotional health and wellbeing, e.g. hydrotherapy, low intensity fitness.
[20] R2.
LPDZ’s impairments
LPDZ was granted access to the NDIS based on impairments from EDS. She contended that this included impairment from Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS). The Agency contended this was not the case.
MK’s evidence was that POTS and EDS are often co-occurring, but the Tribunal understands MK’s evidence to be that they are separate and distinct medical conditions. There was no evidence indicating otherwise.
There is insufficient information before me regarding LPDZ’s POTS to be satisfied that LPDZ has impairments arising from that condition that are permanent and that meet the access criteria in the NDIS Act. That does not mean that LPDZ’s impairments from POTS have no relevance in determining whether a requested support is reasonable and necessary. Note (b) to section 34 states that for the purposes of paragraph 34(1)(aa) a participant’s disability support needs may be affected by a variety of factors including the impact of another impairment in relation to which the participant does not meet the access requirements.
In either case, as will be seen below, where I have found that a support is not a reasonable and necessary support, that has not been on the basis that the support addressed LPDZ’s needs arising from an impairment from POTS rather than EDS.
Specialised hand occupational therapy
LPDZ sought specialised hand occupational therapy for 15 hours over 24 months.
In March 2023, EJ, an occupational therapist with accreditation in hand therapy recommended funding for 18 hours/year for specialised hand occupational therapy.[21] TH also made a general recommendation for hand therapy in 2023.[22] LPDZ also relied on LG’s report dated 22 April 2025[23] and quote dated 24 April 2025,[24] and BA’s report dated 3 June 2025.[25]
[21] T5.
[22] T1F.
[23] A18.
[24] A19.
[25] A20.
In BA’s report dated 3 June 2025, BA stated that LPDZ required specialised hand occupational therapy in addition to general occupational therapy. She said that hand therapy provided targeted intervention for the structural instability affecting LPDZ’s fingers and hands. She said that funding for both general and hand-specific occupational therapy was essential as each discipline targeted different yet equally critical aspects of LPDZ’s management and functional well-being.[26]
[26] A20 at page 475.
LG is an occupational therapist with accreditation in hand therapy. In her report dated 22 April 2025, LG described the support LPDZ required from a range of providers, including occupational therapists. She did not specifically address the need for support from an occupational therapist with accreditation in hand therapy. However, in her quote dated 24 April 2025, LG said that hand therapy management would involve at least two sessions at $193.99/hr.
The Agency conceded that specialised hand occupational therapy of two hours/year, allowing for two sessions/year, or four hours over a two-year plan, was a reasonable and necessary support.
BA’s report in 2025 is recent and I accept based on that report that specialised hand occupational therapy is necessary to address needs of LPDZ arising from impairments from EDS. In determining the amount that is necessary, I prefer LG’s hand therapy quotation since that is the most recent evidence on that issue from an occupational therapist with accreditation in hand therapy. Her quote refers to two sessions/year.
I am therefore not satisfied that the requirements in paragraphs 34(1)(aa) and (c) of the NDIS Act are met for funding at the level requested by LPDZ. I am satisfied however on the evidence that specialised hand occupational therapy of two hours/year, allowing for two sessions/year, is necessary to address needs of LPDZ arising from impairments from EDS (meeting paragraph 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act) and is value for money (meeting paragraph 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act). I am also satisfied that each of the remaining requirements in subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act is met. This is therefore a reasonable and necessary support pursuant to subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act.
Reimbursement for washing machine costs
LPDZ sought $1,229 as low-cost assistive technology to reimburse her for the purchase of a washing machine and the cost of a warranty and delivery. A receipt from the Good Guys dated 19 January 2024 shows that LPDZ purchased a Fisher & Paykel washing machine, model WH1060SG1. This model has an auto-dosing feature. LPDZ also sought funding in the SOPS in her current plan for a custom-built laundry raiser, to raise her washing machine off the laundry floor, and that support is considered separately below.
The Agency contended that the requirements of paragraphs 34(1)(c) and (f) of the NDIS Act were not met for LPDZ’s washing machine costs.
LPDZ’s evidence was that she was unable to do regular loads of washing, that a support worker attended her home from Monday to Friday for two hours each day, and that ‘99%’ of LPDZ’s laundry was done by supports.
LPDZ did not contend that an auto-dosing machine and laundry raiser would enable her to do regular loads of washing. Instead, LPDZ explained that she wanted to be able to undertake small amounts of washing, at times when no informal or formal supports were present. She explained that she wanted to wash one or two items once/week at times when a support worker was not present. She said she would like the ‘basic dignity’ of being able to do this. She described two scenarios where she wanted to be able to wash items and she described this as ‘time-critical’ washing. First, she said that her impairments caused her to spill things on her clothes. If that happened when a support worker was not present, she wanted the ability to wash that item immediately. She gave an example of spilling curry on her clothes when having dinner. Secondly, she explained that if she wanted to wear a particular item and it happened to be dirty and a support worker was not present, she wanted the capacity to wash that item.
LPDZ’s evidence was that if she poured or scooped laundry detergent into a machine herself there was a very high chance that she would experience a joint dislocation. She said she could dislocate the entire upper side of her body trying to scoop powder or lift a heavy bottle of detergent. An auto-dosing machine avoided this. She explained that a support worker could fill the machine’s reservoir with laundry detergent, which was then dispensed later through the auto-dosing feature.
Alternative solutions were put to LPDZ, including using laundry pods or having a support person prepare small containers of powder or detergent. She contended that purchasing an auto-dosing machine was far cheaper than using laundry pods. She considered that having a support person prepare small containers of powder or detergent in advance would necessitate having open containers of powder ‘sitting around’ which ‘gets a little messy’.
TH supported the use of an auto-dosing washing machine. In her ‘Assistive Technology Support Letter’ dated 30 September 2024, she noted that LPDZ had purchased a washing machine with auto dosing. She said that LPDZ was unable to safely demonstrate lifting and manipulating a detergent bottle. TH considered that an auto-dosing machine reduced the ‘task demand’ of adding washing liquid from once every wash to once every 20 washes. She recommended that LPDZ use an auto-dosing washing machine to enhance her independence and autonomy to perform laundry tasks.[27]
[27] A10 at page 419.
NS did not recommend an auto-dosing washing machine. She considered that the task LPDZ wanted to perform could be broken down into smaller tasks and that recommending an auto-dosing machine missed that step in the assessment process altogether. She said there were options such as using a large container of laundry liquid that had a tap or using detergent sheets or detergent pods. As TH did not give oral evidence, it was not possible to hear her opinion in light of the alternatives proposed by NS.
Based on LPDZ’s own evidence, I am satisfied that almost all her washing is undertaken by other supports. I am also satisfied on LPDZ’s evidence that there are only limited times each week when LPDZ’s formal supports would not be present and able to pour detergent in a washing machine so that she can wash an item. She would like the ability to wash an item at times that formal supports are not present, for example, an item she has soiled through spillage or that she wants to wear but discovers is dirty.
The objects of the NDIS Act include supporting the independence of people with disability.[28] LPDZ’s desire to independently wash an item of clothing from time to time is understandable. However, NS gave evidence on the force and twisting action involved in driving a car. Having regard to that evidence, I have difficulty reconciling LPDZ’s evidence that she is at high risk of dislocation from scooping a single scoop of washing powder with the evidence that she routinely drives a car. Even if I accept that LPDZ should avoid scooping washing powder, LPDZ could use a laundry pod or sheet, or have a single dose of powdered detergent ready in a small container, prepared each week in advance by an informal or formal support, on those occasions when a support worker is not present (which LPDZ said was about once/week).
[28] Section 3 NDIS Act.
On that basis, I am not satisfied that a washing machine with an auto-dosing feature is necessary to meet the needs of LPDZ arising from impairments from EDS (required by paragraph 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act) or that it is value for money (required by paragraph 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act). It follows that the warranty and delivery costs also do not meet paragraphs 34(1)(aa) and (c) of the NDIS Act.
There is also no evidence that indicates that the chosen model is anything other than a standard household appliance under Item 1(i) of Schedule 2. Auto-dosing is a built-in feature of the chosen model. LPDZ’s own evidence was that auto-dosing, while not common when the item was purchased, is an increasingly common feature of household washing machines. There was no other evidence addressing whether auto-dosing is a ‘standard’ feature of household washing machines. Had it been necessary to decide, I would therefore have also found that the washing machine is not an NDIS support and the requirements of paragraph 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act are not met.
As all the requirements of subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act are not met, the washing machine costs are not a reasonable and necessary support.
Custom-built laundry raiser
LPDZ sought $3,400 of funding for a custom-built laundry raiser. LPDZ had a front-loading washing machine that was positioned directly on the laundry floor. The funding that LPDZ sought was based on the ‘Assessment template – Minor home modifications’ form completed by TH dated 30 September 2024.[29] It provided for a custom-made cabinet to be installed in LPDZ’s laundry. The cabinet would be 850mm high and LPDZ’s washing machine would sit on top of that cabinet. It would incorporate a pull-out benchtop and pull-out laundry hamper.
[29] A11.
TH recommended the custom-built laundry raiser. She considered that LPDZ was unable to balance in a squat or kneeled position to reach into the washing machine on the floor. She recommended the custom-built laundry raiser because it would enable LPDZ to access her washing machine at chest height, unload washing directly onto the pull-out bench top, then turn and hang washing on a ceiling-mounted clothes hanger. TH thought it would also enable LPDZ to access items in the pull-out laundry hamper without having to lift or carry a laundry basket. TH stated that her assessment demonstrated LPDZ’s expected independence when the washing machine was raised and considered that this support would reduce dependence on support worker assistance with laundry, and in the long term reduce support workers’ hours.
NS did not recommend the custom-built laundry raiser. NS recommended use of laundry raisers generally in all households, not specifically for LPDZ. She said that there were a range of these on the market and she gave examples of options in varying heights at prices well under $1,000, available at outlets including Harvey Norman and Bunnings. Her evidence was that one of these, including ones less than 850mm high, would be adequate for LPDZ.
The Agency conceded that a laundry raiser was a reasonable and necessary support but only to the value of $600. LPDZ contended that a height of 850mm was necessary (based on TH’s in-person assessment), and that none of the ready-made laundry raisers identified by NS were high enough.
I prefer the evidence of NS to the recommendation of TH even though NS did not assess LPDZ or her home in person. First, TH’s statements, without further explanation, are at odds with LPDZ’s own evidence, set out earlier, regarding the very limited way LPDZ was undertaking washing and intended to undertake washing in the future even with a laundry raiser. For example, TH recommended the proposed laundry raiser because it would have a pull-out shelf onto which LPDZ could unload washing, yet LPDZ’s evidence was that she would only wash one or two items once/week.
Secondly, since TH did not give oral evidence, it was not possible to ascertain whether she would now consider that a ready-made laundry raiser would be adequate, given LPDZ’s intended limited use of her washing machine, or whether she maintained her recommendation. If she maintained her recommendation, it was not possible to ascertain why she did not simultaneously recommend a reduction in the domestic assistance in the SOPS in LPDZ’s plan. In that regard, I note that NS recommended only two hours/ week of assistance with domestic activities.[30]
[30] Exhibit 2 at page 8.
Having regard to LPDZ’s own evidence regarding the very limited way in which she intended to use her washing machine herself, and NS’ evidence regarding the suitability and availability of alternative laundry raisers, I am not satisfied that a custom-built laundry raiser costing $3,400 is necessary to meet needs of LPDZ arising from impairments from EDS (required by paragraph 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act). I am also not satisfied that it is value for money, having regard to the benefits and cost of alternatives (required by paragraph 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act).
However, I am satisfied that paragraphs 34(1) (aa) and (c) of the NDIS Act are met for a laundry raiser to a maximum cost of $600. The Agency conceded that the remaining requirements of subsection 34(1) were met regarding a laundry raiser at that cost and I am satisfied that concession is appropriately made. Regarding paragraph 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act, although NS recommended laundry raisers be used in all households, I do not consider on present evidence that a freestanding laundry raiser is excluded by Item 1 of Schedule 2 of the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules.
Zip filter tap
LPDZ sought $6,670 of funding for a zip filter tap. She identified the model as a Hydro Tap g5 CHA Celsius Arc Chrome, which provides filtered boiling water, filtered chilled water, unfiltered hot water and unfiltered ambient water. That tap would be fitted in her kitchen sink. No quote was provided for the zip filter tap alone.
In her own evidence, LPDZ said that she could not lift jugs, press buttons, or use a kettle. She liked to have three or four cups of coffee or tea each day which she drank from a Contigo thermos that had a sipper. She relied on a support worker to fill her Contigo thermos. She said that a tipping kettle is very difficult to control when you have hand spasms and hand weakness. She also said that she was unable to use a tipping kettle because the Contigo thermos she drank from was too tall to fit under a tipping kettle and she could not use a normal, open mug because she spilled things. Similarly, she said that using a microwave to heat a cup of water would involve lifting an open cup out of the microwave.
LPDZ’s evidence was that she also drank throughout the day from a 750ml drink bottle. She kept a 7 litre Britta jug of filtered chilled water in her fridge. She said that she relied on others to fill her water bottle. In discussing alternatives to a zip filter tap, LPDZ was asked about drinking regular water from a kitchen tap. She said that she did not want to drink unfiltered tap water that tasted like chlorine, and her water bottle was also too tall to fit under her kitchen tap although could be filled from a laundry tap. She was also asked about using an urn of filtered water to fill her water bottle. She said an urn of filtered water on a bench would not be suitable. She had tried this in the past and found the tap was hard to manoeuvre, the urn still had to be refilled, and tall drink bottles would not fit underneath the urn tap.
LPDZ said that if her support worker was sick or away for three or four days, and her husband was away, she wanted the ability to maintain her own hydration. She questioned how she would fill a 7 litre Britta jug in that scenario.
In September 2024, TH reported that LPDZ experienced severe difficulty in managing her fluid intake because she was totally dependent on her husband to ‘lift/carry the water container to fill it with cold water and return it to the fridge’. TH considered that the zip filter tap would enable LZPD to be independent in this daily activity.[31] She also said that LPDZ was unable to lift, fill and pour from a kettle safely.[32] In TH’s view, LPDZ was also unable to use a kettle tipper because it required LPDZ to carry the kettle to and from the sink, and fill it at the sink, and because the kettle tipper was not suitable for filling the larger thermos mugs that LPDZ used ‘which promote energy conservation by reducing repetitions of the task’.[33]
[31] A11 at page 427.
[32] A11 at page 427.
[33] A11 at pages 429-430.
MK was not asked directly about LPDZ’s use of large water bottles and thermos mugs. However, her evidence was that LPDZ should generally not carry items exceeding 300 grams and not carry things for prolonged times.
NS did not recommend a zip filter tap. She considered there were much cheaper alternatives. In her oral evidence she explained that she reviewed TH’s assessment regarding LPDZ’s use of a tipping kettle. She considered that LPDZ could fill the tipping kettle by using a hose attached to the tap or by breaking the task down by using a smaller cup to fill the kettle. NS also noted that the assessment involved using a tall thermos mug whereas LPDZ could fit a smaller mug under the tipping kettle. NS also observed that if LPDZ had difficulty with pressing buttons, a zip filter tap would not be suitable since zip filter taps generally had safety features that required the user to press buttons.
The Agency contended that the requirements of paragraphs 34(1)(c) and (f) of the NDIS Act were not met for a zip filter tap.
It is difficult to reconcile LPDZ’s evidence of hand weakness, and MK’s evidence about the small weight LPDZ should carry, with LPDZ’s own insistence that a zip filter tap is necessary given her need to be able to fill tall mugs and water bottles holding 750ml. There was also no opportunity to hear from TH about whether she continued to recommend the zip filter tap despite MK’s opinion that LPDZ should not carry items exceeding 300 grams and despite the options suggested by NS.
In those circumstances, I prefer NS’ evidence. I am not satisfied that LPDZ is unable to use a tipping kettle. LPDZ can also access unfiltered water herself from a tap on those limited occasions when informal and formal supports are not available to fill her large water bottle with her preferred option of filtered water. I am not satisfied that a zip filter tap costing $6,670 is necessary to meet the needs of LPDZ arising from impairments from EDS (required by paragraph 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act) or that it is value for money (required by paragraph 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act). As all the requirements of subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act are not met, a zip filter tap is not a reasonable and necessary support.
Bathroom modifications
LPDZ sought $59,351 to fund complex home modifications to the bathroom in her current home. TH completed a Complex Home Modifications form dated 20 June 2024[34] and a builder provided a quote dated 25 June 2024, for the sum sought by LPDZ.[35] A complex home Modification Assessment Template form was then completed by LPDZ, TH and the builder.[36]
[34] A6.
[35] A7.
[36] A8.
The proposed modifications included enlarging the bathroom by incorporating the area of the current walk-in robe into the bathroom, changing the location of the entry and incorporating a sliding door. It also included removing all existing fittings, and resurfacing the bathroom, and installing new fittings in different locations. Those fittings included a shower recess, a walk-in bath, a vanity with two basins (one of which would be a salon basin for washing hair), a toilet and bidet, a shaving cabinet, light fittings, and towel rails and handrails. The modifications included associated building, plumbing and electrical work.
The Agency contended that the requirement in paragraph 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act was not met for the bathroom modifications.
LPDZ’s evidence
LPDZ’s evidence was that she did not use a shower and instead used a bath. She said that when seated in a shower, her feet were not extended, and blood therefore pooled in her legs. She said that if she went to stand up, she was at risk of fainting. She said that ‘once you add heat and steam it’s worse and you’ve got an almost guaranteed result that I will pass out’. Her evidence was that she could not sit in a shower even for a three-minute shower. Later, she referred to a balance problem and blood pressure problem. She said she was able to use a bath because her legs were extended in a bath.
LPDZ’s evidence regarding washing her hair was that if she tipped her head too far back, she would pass out due to compression of blood vessels and nerves in her spine. She said that if she asked a support worker to wash her hair, and their fingers got caught in her hair it could tug her head backwards and dislocate the joints in her neck. She said that she had previously sent the Agency photographs showing bruising on her neck, where a physiotherapist had to put her neck back in place.
LPDZ said that her options for washing her hair were either to avoid washing her hair, go to a hair salon, or to wash her hair in the bath either by sliding down and lying in the bath ‘like a little kid’ (which she said was not particularly effective) or using something that was attached to the wall behind her. She said that at present, she aimed to use the latter method. However, the device behind her was not height adjustable. She said that what would be ideal would be a bath where she could sit to wash her hair, with an adjustable height shower rose on the wall behind her, and that this was included in the proposed complex bathroom modifications. However, she also contended that the bathroom modifications should include a salon basin so that a support worker could wash LPDZ’s hair using that basin.
TH’s recommendations
TH recommended the bathroom modifications sought by LPDZ. From her report it seemed the modifications were primarily intended to provide:
·a bidet
·a wider doorway with a sliding door
·a walk-in bath
·a hair washing basin.
TH recommended a bidet to enable LPDZ to perform perineal hygiene independently, accommodating for reduced upper limb function.[37]
[37] Page 407.
TH recommended a doorway opening of 950 mm to increase circulation space and reduce the risk of injury due to reduced proprioception. She recommended a cavity sliding door with a D handle to enable LPDZ to open and close the door using an open palm which would accommodate for reduced hand function.[38]
[38] Page 406.
TH recommended a walk-in bath because LPDZ could not use a shower chair and had difficulty with a standard bath. She said that LPDZ was unable to shower using a chair as she was unable to sit in a chair sitting position with her feet on the floor as this exacerbated POTS symptoms including discolouration of her lower limbs, demonstrating reduced blood circulation, and as a result impaired her function and safety.[39] TH also stated that LPDZ was ‘totally unable’ to use the shower recess in her home because she was unable to obtain a comfortable and safe position to perform bathing tasks. She also said that LPDZ was unable to stand or sit on a shower chair or stool ‘due to flaring dysautonomia symptoms and significantly impairing function and safety’ [sic].[40]
[39] Page 394.
[40] Page 401.
TH considered that the bath was more functional and suitable for LPDZ compared to the shower recess, but that LPDZ had difficulty, and occasional total dependence, in transferring in and out of the bath due to the physical demands on her upper limbs to support herself stepping over the bathtub, maintaining her balance, and lowering into sitting position. TH said that as a result LPDZ was limited to bathing one to three times per week, demonstrating a significant impact on her function and personal hygiene.[41]
[41] Page 401.
For hair washing, TH recommended installation of a salon basin so that formal supports could wash LPDZ’s hair. TH considered that LPDZ had ‘frequent’ dependence in hair washing due to reduced upper limb function and relied on self-funded hair washing at a salon costing $50/service. TH reported that LPDZ was unable to receive support for hair washing in a bathtub because LPDZ reported that this resulted in neck injuries due to limited postural support of her neck. TH also stated that LPDZ reported that neck extension lead to onset of severe POTS symptoms including vision changes and that LPDZ ‘feels like she will faint if not corrected immediately’.[42] TH recommended a hair basin as it would enable LPDZ to receive formal support for hair washing, noting that it enabled her to ‘position her neck in a supportive position which does not exacerbate her symptoms (demonstrated as effective and beneficial through lived experience at hair salons)’.[43]
[42] Page 394.
[43] Page 407.
At the same time, TH recommended a handheld shower head and hooks be positioned in the bath area, behind LPDZ’s head, so that she ‘can rinse hair products from her hair in the bath’.[44]
[44] Page 407.
NS’ evidence
NS recommended grab rails near LPDZ’s toilet and in her shower recess, and a non-slip shower mat in her shower. NS did not recommend the bathroom modifications.
NS’ opinion was that LPDZ did not require a walk-in bath. NS considered that LPDZ could safely use a shower chair and shower rose for showering, noting that if LPDZ could drive for short periods, it would be expected she could sit in a shower chair. Alternatively, for bathing, NS considered LPDZ could use a bath board and shower rose or a hoist costing $800-$1000. These were, in her view, reasonable and cost-effective solutions.
NS also did not recommend a salon basin. She considered NS’ hair could be safely washed in the shower by another person. This was routinely done for other people (with the support person wearing an apron and gumboots if needed) and the usual method was to tilt the person’s head forward. It would therefore not be necessary to extend LPDZ’s head back. She thought that determining the best method for someone to wash LPDZ’s hair would involve NS being there in person and a process of trial and error.
NS’ evidence was also that LPDZ was independent with toileting. She thought a toilet wiping stick to wrap toilet paper could be used, or a bidet seat (rather than a whole bidet) if needed.
Consideration
I am unable to rely on TH’s opinion that LPDZ requires a walk-in bath. TH appears to have formed the opinion that LPDZ cannot shower using a shower chair because LPDZ must keep her legs extended. However, that appears to be based on LPDZ’s self-report. There is no independent medical evidence confirming the risk of LPDZ fainting if she sits in a shower for three minutes. It is also difficult to reconcile that assertion with LPDZ’s evidence that she safely and routinely drives a car for short distances. While there is risk of serious injury if a person faints while standing up from a shower chair, the consequences of fainting while driving (including serious injury and death to the driver and other road-users) are of a far greater magnitude. TH has not addressed that apparent inconsistency in her report or why it would not be possible to extend LPDZ’s feet while seated on a shower chair by, for example, putting her feet on a stool.
Without further explanation from TH, I am also unable to rely on TH’s recommendation that LPDZ use a bidet given NS considered LPDZ was independent in toileting and that there was a more cost-effective solution if needed.
I am also unable to rely on TH’s recommendation that LPDZ use a salon basin. First, she described a degree of limitation in bathing (of only bathing one to three times/week) that was not reflected in LPDZ’s own evidence. Secondly, TH appears to have formed the opinion that LPDZ cannot have someone wash her hair other than in a salon basin based on LPDZ’s own self-report of risks. Thirdly, it was unclear why TH considered that LPDZ required a hand-held shower and hooks behind the bath to rinse hair products from her hair, but also required a salon basin. Fourthly, if LPDZ needed someone to wash her hair for her, NS proposed a significantly cheaper alternative than installing a salon basin (namely, having someone wash LPDZ’s hair while seated in the shower or bath), and one which did not require LPDZ to tilt her head backwards.
The bathroom renovations were designed primarily to provide a bidet for toileting, a walk-in bath for LPDZ to bath herself, and a salon basin where someone could wash LPDZ’s hair. For the reasons above I am not satisfied on the evidence that a bidet, walk-in bath and salon basin are each necessary to meet the needs of LPDZ arising from impairments from EDS (required by paragraph 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act) or that each of those items is value for money (required by paragraph 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act). This means that for each of these items, and therefore the bathroom modification generally, all the requirements of subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act are not met. The bathroom modification is not a reasonable and necessary support.
Reimbursement of relocation costs
LPDZ sought $90,568.01 to reimburse relocations costs incurred in December 2023 and January 2024. These are comprised of costs she described as follows:
1)Stamp duty – settlement costs $49,825.00[45]
[45] Ex 9 Email from LPDZ’s husband forwarding bank settlement figures.
2)Legal costs – Qld Titles Registry $5,517.91[46]
[46] Ex 9.
3)Legal costs – search fee $33.91[47]
4)Legal costs – PEXA CGW $66.33[48]
5)Legal costs – PEXA Lake Law $132.66[49]
6)Legal costs – Lake Law $1,250.00[50]
7)Legal costs – Settlement Fee $195.00[51]
8)Agency fees – commission $24,062.50[52]
9)Agency fees – marketing $2,995.00[53]
10)Pest and building inspection $590.00[54]
11)Moving costs – Mini movers $632.70[55]
12)Transportation – Brisk Removals $5,267.00[56]
[47] Ex 9.
[48] Ex 9.
[49] Ex 9.
[50] Ex 9.
[51] Ex 9.
[52] ST5.
[53] ST5.
[54] ST2.
[55] Ex 7.
[56] ST4.
Regarding relocation costs, the Agency referred the Tribunal to two decisions, LFKZ and National Disability Insurance Agency[57] and DRVV and National Disability Insurance Agency.[58] It also referred the Tribunal to its Home Modifications Guideline. That guideline states:
[57] [2025] ARTA 558.
[58] [2025] ARTA 158.
Can we help you move to a more accessible home?
If there are no other options, we may consider funding supports to help you move to a more accessible home if you choose to do so. These supports must be value for money and meet the other NDIS funding criteria. We would only fund these supports if your current home can’t be modified, or if the modifications would be very high cost or won’t meet your needs long term. In this situation, we might be able to fund some of the costs involved in selling your current house and buying a more accessible one. Or we might fund the costs involved in moving to a more accessible rental property. The most important thing is you check with us before you move. We need to assess your situation first. Usually, we won’t fund the costs of moving house, unless we decide it’s value for money and it’s the most effective way to meet your disability support needs. This is because everyone has to pay moving costs, whether or not they have a disability. We can’t fund the purchase of your new house or land. We also can’t fund standard day-today living costs, like rent, rental bonds, home and property deposits, stamp duty, mortgage repayments and strata fees.
LPDZ provided a written list of her considerations ‘for an ideally disability friendly home’ when choosing to move to her current home. She went on to explain in her written submissions that, having decided to move, she was aware that for the NDIS to pay moving costs, those costs had to be incurred solely for ‘disability reasons’ and that a comprehensive occupational therapy report supporting the move would be required. She therefore obtained that report. She said she was subsequently also advised by two builders to move. She explained how one of those builders provided a quote for modifying the laundry and bathroom of her previous home but advised against that option and advised against an alternative option of changing the garage to a bathroom and laundry, on the basis that it would not be value for money. LPDZ said that the cost of moving plus the cost of renovating the bathroom and laundry in her new home was approximately the same cost as converting the garage in her previous home, without the additional benefits of their current home.[59]
[59] Page 509.
In November 2023, TH made the following comments regarding LPDZ’s home:[60]
Functional Limitations of Current Home Layout:
(LPDZ)’s current home environment does not provide sufficient support to meet her disability needs due to the following reasons:
- (LPDZ) has limited privacy to engage in allied health intervention as (another family member) occupies the living area … five days a week. This includes difficulty engaging in recumbent bike exercises, telehealth appointments, and physiotherapy intervention on a plinth.
-….
- Through OT intervention it was identified that the provision of optimal complex bathroom modifications with a walk-in bath for her function were impacted by limitations of bathroom footprint and plumbing work, impacting the capacity to achieve her goals.- Through OT intervention it was identified that the provision of raising laundry appliances to waist height was going to require a full laundry renovation due to limitations of the laundry footprint, as it was going to require the removal of an in-built cupboard to allow sufficient space for the washing machine and drier to be positioned side-by-side.[60] T1F.
TH went on to state that moving home would facilitate LPDZ and her family to move into a home with a larger layout, appropriate for the required complex home modifications. She said that this was expected to increase LPDZ’s ‘accessibility and engagement in therapeutic interventions, which will reduce functional limitations and improve quality of life.’[61]
[61] T1F at page 44.
TH also provided a letter dated 12 February 2024 where she set out the functional limitations of LPDZ’s previous home and expected outcomes for LPDZ of LPDZ’s new home environment. TH identified that the new home had a spare room which had been dedicated to exercise equipment, that LPDZ’s bedroom had an ensuite that shared a wall with a walk-in robe enabling sufficient space for a bathroom modification that would include a walk-in bath, and that the laundry had sufficient space for the dryer and washing machine to be beside each other, so that appliances could be raised with only minor home modifications.[62]
[62] T1G.
TH’s reasoning in supporting LPDZ’s move to her new accommodation was therefore based largely on the need for a walk-in bath, the need to raise laundry appliances, and the benefit of providing additional privacy for LPDZ to engage in allied health interventions at home.
First, while privacy may be desirable, subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act sets a higher bar in determining whether a support should be funded. Supports must be necessary to address needs of the participant arising from an impairment and must be value for money, having regard to alternatives. There was insufficient evidence addressing, for example, alternative ways that LPDZ might have adequately engaged in allied health interventions without moving home.
Secondly, for the reasons set out earlier, I do not consider that the bathroom modifications to LPDZ’s current home and the custom-built laundry raiser in her current home, meet the requirements in paragraph 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act. I do not consider that a walk-in bath, salon basin, bidet and custom-built laundry raiser are necessary to meet LPDZ’s needs arising from impairments from EDS. This means that even if moving to LPDZ’s current home was the only, or most effective, way of achieving some of or all those features, I could not be satisfied that moving (and therefore the associated costs) was necessary to meet LPDZ’s needs arising from impairments from EDS. Absent those factors, it is not clear that LPDZ’s bathroom and laundry in her previous home were not suitable to her needs and that moving was necessary to meet her needs and value for money.
I am therefore not satisfied on the evidence that any of the relocation costs were necessary to meet the needs of LPDZ arising from impairments from EDS (required by paragraph 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act) or that they were value for money (required by paragraph 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act).
I have also considered whether each of the relocation costs is an ‘NDIS support’ as required by paragraph 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act.
Item 1(a) of Schedule 2 of the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules excludes stamp duty as an NDIS support. In National Disability Insurance Agency v Warwick, the Full Federal Court considered relocation costs and the phrase ‘day-to-day living costs’ in Rule 5 of the Supports Rules. The Court considered that one-off, remarkable, unforeseen, infrequent or extraordinary costs will not be excluded by the rule, even if they are costs that all or the majority of persons incur for the purposes of living.[63] However, in the present matter the Tribunal must also apply the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules. These expressly exclude stamp duty as an NDIS support in Item 1(a) of Schedule 2.
[63] [2025] FCAFC 100 at [66].
Costs (2) to (7) of the costs claimed by LPDZ are described as ‘legal costs’. No further information was provided. They appear to be amounts paid by way of legal fees and disbursements in conveyancing. Item 2(h) of Schedule 2 excludes legal costs. I am satisfied on this evidence that costs (2) to (7) are excluded by Item 2(h) of Schedule 2.
The real estate agent fees, marketing fees, building and pest expenses, and moving costs are not specifically excluded by Schedule 2. I am unable however to identify any item in Schedule 1 that would encompass those costs. I am therefore satisfied that supports (8) to (12) are not NDIS supports.
This means that, for all the relocation costs, the requirements in paragraphs 34(1)(aa) and 34(1)(c), together with paragraph 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act, are not met.
The requested consumables:
LPDZ sought to have the following items, which are consumables or low-cost assistive technology or adaptive equipment, included in her plan over a two-year period, or in different quantities, over a five-year period:[64]
[64] Ex 10.
1)4 easyholds ($61.31ea) $245.24
2)1 shopping trolley $546
3)2 adaptive eating utensils ($53.22ea) $106.44
4)2 Contigo non-spill coffee thermos (($64.36ea) $128.72
5)2 Contigo non-spill water bottles ($43.36ea) $86.30
6)1 electric cleansing brush $45.99
7)12 packets of self-care wipes ($55.18ea) $662.16
8)2 bath robes ($128ea) $256
9)2 sleep support body pillows ($115.29ea) $230.58
10)2 neck support pillows ($193ea) $386
11)TENS Machine $178.99
12)8 TENS machine replacement pads ($44.95ea) $359.60
13)1 HoMedics therapy gun $249
14)4 Elastoplast wrist supports ($29.99ea) $119.96
15)12 compression gloves ($14.99) $179.88
16)4 ankle support braces ($28.95ea) $115.80
17)8 pairs of 2xu compression tights ($154.29ea) $1,234.32
18)1 body braid $800
19)2 support pillows ($107.11ea) $214.22
20)4 ring splints ($255ea) $1,020
In the hearing, LPDZ acknowledged that the costs of body braids had decreased and that this could now be purchased for $620, not $800.
The Agency conceded that an amount should be included in LPDZ’s plan for $2,300 for 12 months, reducing thereafter, to account for the laundry raiser of $600, set out earlier, ring splints, easyholds, adaptive cutlery, compression gloves, and body braids of $620. In oral submissions it was also conceded that consumables funding could be used to purchase wipes.
MK provided a comprehensive table regarding the requested consumables. She set out details of each of the requested consumables, including product details, a description of the function of the item, and LPDZ’s need for that item.[65]
[65] Exhibit 8.
I am satisfied, based on MK’s description, that supports 4, 5, and 6, that is, the Contigo thermos and drink bottles, and the electric cleaning brush, are household products falling within Item 3(a) of Schedule 2 of the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules.
I am also satisfied based on MK’s descriptions that items 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, that is, the TENS machine, TENS machine replacement pads, therapy gun, Elastoplast wrist supports, ankle support braces, and compression tights, are health products falling within Item 3(a) of Schedule 2 of the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules and are therefore not NDIS supports.
I am also satisfied that supports 2, 8, 9, 10, and 19, that is, the shopping trolley, bath robes, sleep support body pillows, neck support pillows, and support pillows, each fall within Item 1(i) of Schedule 2 of the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules, as standard household items, and are therefore not NDIS supports. If the pillows are not standard household items, they are each health products falling within Item 3(a) of Schedule 2 of the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules. If the shopping trolley is not excluded under Schedule 2, I am not satisfied that it falls within an Item in Schedule 1.
I am satisfied that the Agency’s concessions regarding ring splints, easyholds, adaptive cutlery, compression gloves, and body braids of $620 are appropriately made and that these are reasonable and necessary supports, meeting the requirements of subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act. I also consider that the amount of $2,300 over 12 months is an appropriate amount for those items. I note in that regard that LG provided a quote in April 2025 recommending LPDZ be funded for four ring splints[66] and the evidence at the hearing was that LPDZ had already used funding in her NDIS plan to purchase those ring splints. The remaining requested consumables are not reasonable and necessary supports because the requirement in paragraph 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act is not met for those items.
[66] A18.
For the reasons set out above, I find that the requirements in subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act are met for two hours of specialised hand occupational therapy in the next 12 months. I also find that the requirements in subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act are met for ring splints, easyholds, adaptive eating utensils, compression gloves, a body braid costing $620, and a laundry raiser to the value of $600, and that an amount of $2,300 over 12 months should be included in LPDZ’s plan for these supports.
The requirements in subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act are not met for washing machine costs, a custom-built laundry raiser, bathroom modifications, a zip filter tap, relocation costs and the remaining requested consumables.
LPDZ asked that any new SOPS provide funding for five years. However, the current SOPS include a very large amount of funding, including a large amount of flexible core funding for assistance with daily life and social, economic and community participation. Given NS’ evidence regarding LPDZ’s functional impairment, any ongoing need for that funding, and the reliability of evidence regarding those supports, should be reviewed very closely and regularly.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits this matter to the Respondent with directions that:
1.A new statement of participant supports (SOPS) be approved for the Applicant, and that the following reasonable and necessary supports be included in the SOPS, as funded under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits as updated from time to time (unless otherwise stated):
(i) 2 hours per year for 2 sessions of hand occupational therapy for review and assessment of ring splints;
(ii) $2,300 over 12 months for funding of consumables, low-cost assistive technology or equipment that are NDIS supports, to be used flexibly to facilitate the purchase of:
a. ring splints
b. easyholds
c. adaptive eating utensils
d. compression gloves
e. the once-off purchase of a body braid for $620
f. the once-off purchase of a laundry raiser for $600.(iii) all other reasonable and necessary supports provided in the Applicant’s plan commencing 21 March 2025 (excluding any one-off assistive technology support(s) already used) in other budgets not mentioned at paragraph (ii) be replicated for a period of 12 months.
2.The reassessment date be 12 months after the supports listed at paragraph [1] above are included in a SOPS.
1.
2. I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty-two (132) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member A Colvin.
.....[sgd] ......
Associate
Dates of hearing: 25, 26, 27 and 28 August 2025
Solicitor for the Applicant: Self-represented
Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Hartwig, Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S Love
1
6
0