NCXH and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) - [2025] ARTA 727

NCXH and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 727 (12 June 2025)
Applicant/s:  NCXH
Respondent:  CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency
Tribunal Number:                2022/9238 & 2022/9769
Tribunal:Senior Member K Bean
Place:Sydney
Date: 12 June 2025

In Application 2022/9769, the Applicant’s current statement of participant supports (SOPS) is varied as follows:
(a)A budget of $3,000.00 per year for consumables within the Applicant’s existing core supports budget is to be self-managed;
(b)The amount allowed for occupational therapy is to be increased from 15 to 25 hours per year;
(c)The amount allowed for support worker assistance with house cleaning and other household activities is to be increased from 2 to 4 hours per week;
(d)The review date is to be in 24 months from when the varied SOPS is implemented; and
(e)All other supports are to be replicated on a pro rata basis.
In Application 2022/9238, the decision under review is affirmed.
.........................[SGD]...............................................
Senior Member K Bean
Catchwords
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME – review of statement of participant supports – reasonable and necessary supports - application of transitional rules – increase in plan duration – removal of special reporting requirements – assistance with meal preparation – consumables funding – support for decluttering – podiatry services – eligibility for specialist disability accommodation – decision under review varied
Legislation
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 (Specialist Disability Accommodation) Rules 2020 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth)
Cases
National Disability Insurance Agency v KKTB, by her litigation representative CVY22 [2022] FCAFC 181
Secondary Materials
National Disability Insurance Scheme, Operational Guidelines ‘Creating your plan’ (16 May 2025) (Web Page) < align="center">Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant is a 66-year-old man who has been diagnosed with an acquired brain injury (ABI), major depressive disorder and social phobia. He currently lives with his ex-partner, now carer, in Sydney New South Wales. He is a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) having met the access criteria on the basis of impairments relating to major depressive disorder and ABI.[1]
[1] Respondent’s Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SOFIC) dated 6 November 2024 at [31].
The Applicant has applied to the Tribunal for review of two internal review decisions made with respect to his NDIS plan of 18 August 2022, giving rise to this matter.[2]
[2] T11.
Before identifying the issues in dispute and the applicable legislative criteria, I will first explain the procedural history of the matter.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
As I have already alluded to, on 11 November 2022, the Applicant lodged an application with the Tribunal seeking review of an internal review decision of 11 October 2022[3] which declined his request for Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) in the context of the statement of participant supports (SOPS) in his plan dated 18 August 2022.[4] That application became Application 2022/9238.
[3] TB26/136.
[4] TB26/152.
On 17 November 2022, he lodged a further application seeking review of an internal review decision of 20 October 2022, which declined to vary his SOPS to change the way his supports were managed.[5] This became application 2022/9769.
[5] T Documents 2022/9769, T10/17.
I should also note that as both applications were lodged after 1 July 2022, any subsequent SOPS also comes within my jurisdiction.[6] Accordingly, the SOPS in the Applicant’s current plan of 9 May 2023 is also one of the decisions under review in this matter. I note this plan was recently extended and now has a review date of 8 May 2026.
[6] Section 103(2), National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth).
A hearing in the matter took place on 1 October 2024, at which additional issues arose. I made Directions at the hearing giving the Respondent until 6 November 2024 to provide an Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions addressing the additional issues, with the Applicant to provide any response by 27 November 2024. In the event, the Applicant was not able to comply with that deadline. A number of extensions were given, and the Applicant ultimately provided a detailed submission in reply dated 1 May 2025.
I will next outline the supports in issue between the parties before setting out the applicable legislative provisions.
THE SUPPORTS IN ISSUE
At the conclusion of the hearing, the items the Applicant was seeking to have included in his SOPS and which remained in dispute between the parties were as follows:
(a)All supports except $3,000.00 of flexible core supports to be Agency-managed;
(b)A plan term of 24 months;
(c)Total NDIS funded supports to be increased to at least the total funding in the Applicant’s plan dated 15 December 2020 ($115,809);
(d)Removal of any special reporting requirements imposed on support coordinators who provide services to the Applicant;
Core supports
(e)Assistance with the cost of preparation and delivery of meals increased to the amount in the Applicant’s plan dated 15 December 2020 ($30,662.10);
(f)Self-managed funding of $3,000 per year for flexible core supports for use across Consumables, Assistance with Daily Living and Assistance with Social and Community Participation;
(g)Consumables funding to include $2,674 for basic (Level 1) and standard (Level 2) assistive technology;
(h)Increased core support funding for house cleaning and other household activities;
(i)Increased core support funding for regular house and garden maintenance, including lawn mowing;
Capacity Building Supports
(j)One-off, self-managed support for a decluttering and organising specialist to assist with sorting, removing and disposing of unnecessary items in the Applicant’s home (in addition to the existing 15 hours per year of occupational therapy);
(k)10 hours one-off support from an occupational therapist to support the Applicant with sorting and removing unnecessary items from the Applicant’s home (in addition to the existing 15 hours per year or occupational therapy);
(l)Podiatry services;
Capital supports
(m)Eligibility for SDA.
At a Directions Hearing on 16 December 2024, the Applicant also raised the issue of support co-ordination and was given leave to address this in his final submissions, which he has done. Accordingly, that is also one of the issues I must address.
THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
The NDIS was established under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) (NDIS Act). Its objectives are set out in section 3 and the general principles guiding actions taken under the NDIS Act are set out in section 4.
A participant’s plan must include a SOPS, approved in accordance with the NDIS Act, and any rules made under the NDIS Act such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013.
Section 33(5) of the NDIS Act requires that the CEO (or his or her delegate), in deciding whether to approve the SOPS under s 33(2), must have regard to a number of factors including the participant’s statement of goals and aspirations and relevant assessments conducted in relation to the participant, and be satisfied the supports are “reasonable and necessary”.
The NDIS Act has recently been amended, with a number of changes taking effect from 3 October 2024. The amending legislation, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Act 2024 (Cth)(the Amending Act) provides that the legislative provisions regarding preparing participant’s plans as in force after 3 October 2024 apply in relation to an approval or variation of a SOPS after that date.[7] As the Applicant is seeking a variation to his SOPS, it follows that I am obliged to apply the Act and Rules as in force after 3 October 2024.
[7] At s 129.
The following amendments to the Act are especially relevant to a determination as to reasonable and necessary supports to include in a SOPS:
(a)Paragraph 34(1)(aa) of the Act has been included, which provides that a decision maker must be satisfied “the support is necessary to address needs of the participant arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements.”
(b)Paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Act has been varied, and now provides that a decision maker must be satisfied that “the support is an NDIS support for the participant.”
(c)Section 10 of the Act has been included, which defines NDIS support and provides that supports are, or are not, NDIS supports if, among other things, they are declared to be so in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Rules made for the purpose of this section. Relevantly, the NDIS Support Rules can declare that a support is not an NDIS support: s 10(4).
Subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act now provides, with respect to reasonable and necessary supports as follows:
(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 an 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.
Satisfaction of each of the s 34 criteria is strict. Upon review, the Tribunal must be positively satisfied of each of the matters enumerated in s 34(1) in order to determine both the reasonable and necessary supports, and general supports, to be funded for a participant of the NDIS.
However, s 34 is not exhaustive. It does not confine the facts and issues which the Tribunal may have regard to when determining whether a support is reasonable and necessary for a participant given their impairments. In National Disability Insurance Agency v KKTB, by her litigation representative CVY22 [2022] FCAFC 181, Justices Mortimer and Abraham explained as follows (at [128]):
“The phrase “reasonable and necessary supports” is not defined in the NDIS Act. Section 34 does not exhaust the universe of matters which a decision-maker may consider to decide whether a support is a reasonable and necessary one for a particular participant, given their impairments: see McGarrigle at [91]. See also WRMF at [150]. Section 34 prescribes matters about which the decision-maker must be satisfied before a support can be included in a statement of supports under s 33. Satisfaction as to those matters (where relevant and applicable) may be conditions on the power to approve a support or supports, and enter a support in a statement of supports under s 33. However, the phrase “reasonable and necessary supports” has a qualitative aspect and leaves an area of decisional freedom in the conclusion reached by a decision-maker about whether a support is properly characterised as a “reasonable and necessary support”: WRMF at [143], [152]. It is a composite phrase, which should not be definitively constrained, with each limb of the phrase using language well understood by courts: WRMF at [149]-[150], [252].”
As noted above, the Amending Act commenced on 3 October 2024. On the same date, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth) (NDIS Supports Transitional Rules) also commenced.
For the purposes of s 10 of the Act, the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules provide a list of:
(a)Supports that are NDIS supports;
(b)Replacement supports;
(c)Supports that are not NDIS supports, unless otherwise provided; and
(d)Supports that are generally not NDIS supports.
The NDIS Operational Guidelines for Reasonable and Necessary Supports are also relevant to the decision under review. The Operational Guidelines should be applied by the Tribunal to the extent they are consistent with the legislative scheme, unless there is a good reason not to do so.
DISCUSSION OF SUPPORTS IN ISSUE
I will next discuss each of the supports which remain in issue between the parties.
(a)All supports, except $3000 of flexible core supports, to be Agency managed
I note the Respondent’s position is that the Applicant’s entire plan should be Agency managed, and this is reflected in his current plan. Therefore, the only difference between the parties relates to whether the part of the plan relating to flexible core supports should be self-managed, as sought by the Applicant.[8] This is dealt with separately below in the context of support (f).
[8] Applicant’s Submissions dated 30 September 2024, at [17].
(b)A plan term of 24 months
I note each of the Applicant’s three most recent plans have had a duration of 24 months (although his current plan has recently been extended for 12 months). The Applicant has requested that his current plan also have a duration of 24 months as, understandably, he finds the plan review process intensely stressful.
In its Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SOFIC), the Respondent contended that the preferable review date would be in 12 months, for two reasons. The first reason given related to difficulties the Agency was then having with implementing plans exceeding 12 months.[9] However, I note those difficulties appear to have been overcome, and the current Operational Guidelines indicate that where an adult participant’s living and support needs are stable, their plan will usually go for 5 years.[10] The Guidelines also state the Agency will “try to make the plan length what you want, when we can”.[11]
[9] At [34].
[10] Operational Guidelines, “Creating Your Plan”,16 May 2025, p 31.
[11] Operational Guidelines, “Creating Your Plan”,16 May 2025, p 31.
Secondly, the Respondent drew my attention to the Applicant’s statement in his submissions of 30 September 2024 that he was “considering living overseas for at least three years to study at a European university to reduce the risk of dementia”.[12] However, this possibility was not referred to at the hearing and has not been mentioned in any of the Applicant’s subsequent submissions. I also note the Applicant has recently ceased University studies altogether and has repeatedly stressed that he is very dependent on his current carer, who is now elderly. In my assessment, it is unlikely the Applicant will travel overseas in the next few years, therefore the possibility of this is of limited relevance to the question of plan duration.
[12] At [64].
Noting the Applicant’s preference for a review date of 24 months, and the fact it appears many plans are currently being given review dates of 5 years, I am satisfied it is appropriate to specify in the SOPS resulting from my decision that the review date be in 24 months.
(c) Total NDIS supports to be increased to at least the total funding amount in the Applicant’s plan of 15 December 2020 ($115,809)
I note that in his submission of 30 September 2024, the Applicant accepted the Respondent’s contention that “funding in his plan should flow from whatever supports are found to be reasonable and necessary”.[13] Consistently with this, in his final submission of 1 May 2025, the Applicant indicated that his request for funding at the previous level “should not be seen as a strict request for an increase but as a necessary return to the level of funding they previously received”.[14]
[13] Applicant’s submission dated 30 September 2024, at [23].
[14] Applicant’s final submission, p 6.
In my view the statutory framework I have outlined above dictates that funding must be determined having regard to the supports which are reasonable and necessary for a particular participant, and the cost of those supports. Accordingly, I do not consider it would be legally permissible for me to determine the content of the Applicant’s plan by reference to the total amount of funding contained in a previous plan.
(d)Removal of any special reporting requirements imposed on support co-ordinators
In his submission of 30 September 2024, the Applicant referred to the reporting requirements applicable to his support co-ordinator contained in a Request for Service form dated 1 June 2023. While noting he did not currently have a support co-ordinator, he sought an order from the Tribunal restricting future reporting requirements to no more than the general reporting requirements of the Complex Support Needs Branch of the Agency.[15] He reiterated this request in his final submission of 1 May 2025, and provided detailed reasons for the request.[16]
[15] Applicant’s submission of 30 September 2024, at [46]-[49].
[16] Applicant’s final submission, p 7.
The Respondent’s position is that this request falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as it does not relate to the approval of a SOPS.
I accept the correctness of this submission of the Respondent. My jurisdiction in the context of this matter is limited to determining the content of the Applicant’s SOPS. As reporting requirements are not a support or something which can appropriately be contained in a SOPS, I have no authority to engage with or determine this issue.
(e)Assistance with the cost of preparation and delivery of meals to be increased to $30,662.10
In his submission of 30 September 2024, the Applicant stated that he accepted “the amount of funding will flow from the number of meals required per week”.[17] At the hearing, his position was that the available funding for this item was not necessarily in contention, though he would prefer the amount of funding contained in his previous plan, of $30,662.10. Similarly, in his final submission the Applicant indicated he did not “necessarily contest the dollar figure of NDIS funds for this support”.[18] He also acknowledged that meal preparation and delivery are generally not considered NDIS supports.[19]
[17] Applicant’s submission of 30 September 2024, at [28].
[18] Applicant’s final submission of 1 May 2025, p 8.
[19] Applicant’s final submission of 1 May 2025, p 8.

In its Amended SOFIC, the Respondent pointed out that the Applicant’s then current plan contained funding for 5 hours per week with personal domestic activities.[20] I also note that in the Applicant’s current plan pursuant to the recent extension, 5 hours per week equating to $13,709.80 is specified for “support with preparing meals”.
[20] Respondent’s Amended SOFIC, Annexure A.
The Respondent has also pointed out that, following changes to the NDIS Supports Rules, the following are no longer NDIS supports for the purposes of s 34(1)(f) of the Act:
(a)Groceries including all food, beverage, cleaning, household and health products; and
(b)Fast food services, takeaway food and food delivery platforms (though meal delivery platforms where the food ingredient component can be separately identified from the meal preparation and delivery components are not included in paragraph (b)).[21]
[21] Item 3, Schedule 2 to the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules.
The Respondent contends five hours of support worker assistance should be sufficient for the bulk preparation of one week’s worth of meals for the Applicant, noting this can be used flexibly for obtaining prepared and delivered meals (excluding the food and ingredient component) should the Applicant prefer.[22]
[22] Respondent’s Amended SOFIC at [45].
Noting the Applicant has not contended that 5 hours of support worker assistance per week will not be sufficient to meet this need, I am not persuaded there is a need for this support to be increased.
(f)Self-managed funding of $3,000 per year for flexible core supports
The Applicant is seeking that a portion of his core supports budget be self-managed, to enable him to purchase consumables including personal continence products and low-cost assistive technology items. The Respondent’s position is that it remains “unclear” why this is required given the supports referred to are included in the Applicant’s plan and can be used flexibly.[23]
[23] Respondent’s Amended SOFIC, at [48].
However, the Applicant has explained that self-management enables Agency-managed participants to purchase items from non-registered providers, such as a local pharmacy.[24] He contends that his 2022-24 plan did not include self-managed funding because it was plan-managed, and a plan manager can approve purchases from non-registered providers.[25] He has also pointed out that his 2020 plan included a budget of $3,000 for self-managed core supports, in circumstances where his other core supports were Agency-managed.[26]
[24] Applicant’s submissions of 30 September 2024 at [30].
[25] Applicant’s submissions of 30 September 2024 at [30]; T Documents, p 97.
[26] T Documents, p 82.
I accept the Applicant is correct that where a plan is Agency-managed, supports can only be obtained from registered providers.[27] Therefore, if his plan is to be entirely Agency-managed, he will face new limitations in sourcing consumables including continence products.
[27] T Documents, p 81.
In these circumstances, I have ultimately concluded the Applicant’s request is justified and reasonable, and it is appropriate to allow a self-managed budget of $3000 (within the Applicant’s cores supports budget) for flexible supports. I note the amount involved is modest and this essentially replicates the relevant aspect of the Applicant’s 2020 plan.

(g)Consumables funding to include $2,674 for assistive technology support
The Applicant is seeking funding in the amount of $2,674 to purchase the following assistive technology products:
(a)Dragon Professional v16 dictation software from Voice Recognition Australia ($995);
(b)Kurzweil 3000 English screen reader software (Approximately $1,500);
(c)An accessible mobile phone - Olitech EasyMate2 from Vision Australia ($179).
Although this request was not expressly reiterated in his final submission, I have assumed the Applicant is still seeking that an amount sufficient to purchase these items be included in his plan.
Mobile phone
The Applicant is seeking provision of an accessible mobile phone, as he finds smart phones difficult to understand and operate.[28] However, the Respondent has pointed out that under the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules, the following are no longer NDIS supports (unless a relevant replacement support determination is in effect, which is not the case here):
“(d) internet devices (such as modems and routers), land line phones, mobile phones (including smart phones), mobile phone accessories, tablets and sim cards”.[29]
[28] Applicant’s submissions 30 September 2024, at [33].
[29] Item 4, Schedule 2 of the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules.
Although I would have been sympathetic to the Applicant’s request for an accessible mobile phone, I accept the Respondent’s submission that, as the Supports Rules now preclude provision of mobile phones as supports (other than in limited circumstances which don’t apply here), it is not open to me to include a mobile phone in the Applicant’s SOPS.
Software - $2,495
In his Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, the Applicant contended that provision of the software sought would:
“support him in using a computer in his university studies and in daily life (writing and reading email, filling in forms, paying bills etc) which will help him pursue two of his goals:
(a) “I would like to complete my studies and per chance find suitable and modified employment within the field of my study” and

(b) “I would like to be supported so I can maintain my confidence/independence in looking after myself and continue caring for my partner”.[30]
[30] Applicant’s SOFIC, [61].
He also relies on a letter from his Occupational Therapist, Jasse Jang, in which they recommended the dictation software sought, stating this would “remove barriers experienced from written communication including difficulties and frustrations associated with typing”.[31] They also recommended the screen reader software sought, indicating this would support the Applicant’s written communication as he “finds verbally processing information easier than written information”.[32].
[31] TB 13, p 47.
[32] TB 13, p 47
In his final submission, the Applicant indicated he was no longer undertaking University studies.[33] However, he contended assistive technology equipment was nevertheless required to allow him to communicate adequately. He explained that, by reason of his disability-related impairments together with his social phobia and “major anxiety disorder”[34] he has great difficulty with reading and writing activities and can engage much more effectively through spoken communication. He therefore relies on assistive technology “such as speech-to-text and text-to-speech software” to “complete basic daily tasks, manage documents, and communicate independently”.[35] In addition, he contended “This technology is necessary to help prevent brain degeneration…”.[36]
[33] At p 8.
[34] At p 9.
[35] At p 9.
[36] At p 9.
The Applicant has also submitted that “delays or barriers to accessing or replacing assistive technology would lead to significant deterioration in their independence, mental health, and overall wellbeing”. Accordingly, he has requested this funding be available on a flexible basis[37].
[37] Applicant’s Final Submission, p 9.
Relevantly to these supports, the Respondent has acknowledged that the following are NDIS supports for the purposes of s 34(1)(f) of the Act:
(a) products that help a participant to receive, send, produce and/or process information in different forms; and
(b) products that facilitate a participant communicating by language, signs and symbols, receiving and producing messages, having conversations and using communication devices and techniques.”[38]
[38] Item 11, Schedule 1 to the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules.
On the other hand, the following are not NDIS Supports:
(a)Supports (including assistive products) for students that primarily relate to their education and training.[39]
[39] Item 17, Schedule 2 to the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules.
The Respondent contends that both screen reader software and speech to text software are available free of charge “through various online providers and included as standard with Microsoft and Apple products”.[40] The Respondent also contends the primary purpose of the requested software was for University related tasks (which I note the Applicant is no longer undertaking).
[40] Respondent’s Amended SOFIC, [56].
The Respondent further contends that past recommendations with respect to software were made with the Applicant’s University studies in mind, although I note reference is also made in a number of reports to his difficulty communicating and expressing himself.[41] The Respondent also relies on the Applicant’s submission at the hearing that the free software available would be insufficient for his University studies,[42] potentially suggesting that it may be sufficient for his other needs.
[41] Report of Ms Manlapid dated 28 July 2021, T Docs, T6/45; report of Jasse Jan-Webb dated 11 June 2024, TB 13, pp 46-47.
[42] Respondent’s Amended SOFIC at [57].
In his submission of 30 September 2024, the Applicant disputed the Respondent’s contention that the software sought was predominantly for educational purposes and submitted it was needed because he mainly communicates with the outside world in writing due to his severe social phobia.[43] Consistently with his most recent submission, he also contended these supports would assist him to be more independent with day-to-day administrative tasks.
[43] At [32].
I have found this support difficult to determine. Originally, the request for this support was based at least partly on the Applicant’s needs associated with his University studies, which he is no longer undertaking. In support of his need for this funding, the Applicant has also referred to his severe social phobia and anxiety (which are not relevant disabilities)[44], as well as his need to avoid brain degeneration, which is also not a relevant consideration in assessing his need for supports under the NDIS.
[44] NDIS Act, s 34(1)(aa).
I accept the Applicant’s relevant impairments do pose challenges with respect to communication which are ameliorated to some extent by assistive technology. However, I have ultimately concluded the self-managed budget of $3000.00 per year for consumables I have already allowed for should be sufficient to meet his assistive technology requirements related to his relevant impairments. Therefore, I am not satisfied the additional amount of $2,674.00 sought by the Applicant for assistive technology is reasonable or necessary and do not propose to allow any additional amount for assistive technology.

(h)Increased core support funding for house cleaning and other household activities
As I understand it, the Applicant is currently funded for two hours per week of house cleaning and other household activities. This appears to exceed the recommendation of Jasse Jang, who recommended fortnightly cleaning assistance in their report of 11 June 2024.[45]
[45] TB 13/49.
In his final submission, the Applicant confirmed he was seeking an additional two hours per week “to manage hoarding-related challenges”[46]. He also sought confirmation that these hours could be used flexibly to provide support with outside tasks including yard maintenance and gutter cleaning.
[46] At p 10.
In its Amended SOFIC of 6 November 2024, the Respondent conceded that an additional two hours per week for house cleaning and other household activities (making four hours in total) was reasonable and necessary “having regard to the additional work required for addressing the hoarded materials….”.[47]
[47] At [63].
It follows that this support is agreed between the parties, and I am also satisfied that an additional two hours per week for house cleaning and other household activities is reasonable and necessary, having regard to the additional challenges posed by the large number of items which have accumulated in and around the Applicant’s home due to his hoarding behaviours.
Accordingly, I will vary the Applicant’s current SOPS to provide for an additional 2 hours per week of support with house cleaning and other household activities.
I will address the issue of support with external maintenance activities separately below.

(i)Regular house and garden maintenance, including lawn mowing and gutter cleaning
The Applicant has indicated that his current property has a lawn and garden which needs regular maintenance.[48] He seeks additional funding to assist with this and relies on Jasse Jang’s report of 11 June 2024 in which they recommend a regular yard maintenance service to manage the lawn and enable him to “keep on top of” smaller gardening tasks without becoming overwhelmed.[49] The Applicant has also explained that he is anxious about using a lawn mower or climbing a ladder to clean gutters, and his “OCD” makes tasks such as gardening and lawn mowing very time-consuming and exhausting, which leads to him putting these tasks off.
[48] Applicant’s SOFIC at [97].
[49] TB 13/50.
In his submissions prior to the hearing, the Applicant sought funding for mowing and gardening once a month, and gutter cleaning twice a year, and has provide quotes on this basis totalling $3,185.40 for 60 hours a year for mowing and gardening, and $2,123.60 for 40 hours a year for gutter clearing.[50] In response to the Respondent’s contention that he could use his present funding for core supports for this purpose, the Applicant stated in his submissions of 30 September 2024 that he currently uses his core supports budget on “other things”.[51]
[50] At [102], TB 18/74-75
[51] At [44].
At the hearing, the Applicant also explained that his social phobia made it impossible for him to garden or clean the gutters during the day. He also acknowledged that gutter clearing would present physical challenges for him unrelated to his disabilities. He said he enjoyed gardening in the council garden, but would do this at night when there was less risk of encountering others.
In his final submission the Applicant contended that, due to his social phobia and anxiety, it is impossible for him to “manage house and garden maintenance” on his own.[52] He further contended he was unable to use “heavy machinery” due to his disability and referred to instances of having fallen off ladders.[53] He stated that tasks such as mowing the lawn or cleaning gutters required him to be in an “unfenced, shared front yard area, where visual contact with neighbours or passers-by is unavoidable”.[54]
[52] At p 10.
[53] At p 10.
[54] At p 10.
The Respondent has raised a number of issues with respect to this support, including:

(a)There is no clinical recommendation with respect to gutter cleaning and there has been no assessment of how much gutter clearing is required, or to what extent this is subject to common maintenance by a strata body;
(b)There has also been no proper assessment of how much gardening is required, and the Applicant’s Occupational Therapist, Jasse Jang, has not visited the Applicant’s residence for this purpose. It is also unclear to what extent any garden area is maintained by a strata body;
(c)Provision of the support would actively limit the Applicant’s social participation and for that reason would not be beneficial for him; and
(d)The evidence does not demonstrate that support for yard maintenance and gutter clearing is necessary to address a need arising from an impairment in relation to which the Applicant meets the disability requirements as required by s 24 of the Act.[55]
[55] Respondent’s Amended SOFIC, at [68].
With respect to gutter cleaning, I accept the Respondent’s contentions. This has not been the subject of any clinical recommendation, and it is unclear how much gutter cleaning is required, and to what extent this is attributable to impairments resulting from the Applicant’s relevant disabilities of major depressive disorder and ABI. I note it would not be unusual for a person of 66 to require assistance with gutter cleaning for physical reasons. On the current evidence, I am not satisfied the Applicant requires a particular level of support with gutter cleaning, or that this is primarily related to his relevant disabilities.
Similarly, with respect to gardening and lawn mowing, I am not satisfied on the current evidence as to precisely how much support the Applicant requires with these activities and to what extent this is due to his relevant disabilities of depression and ABI, as opposed to his anxiety disorders and physical limitations. It is also unclear on the evidence to what extent maintenance of the Applicant’s front yard is a shared responsibility, noting it is an unfenced and shared space.
On the evidence available to me, I am therefore not satisfied that support for yard maintenance or gutter cleaning is reasonable and necessary within the meaning of the Act.

(j)One-off self-managed support for decluttering and organising specialist
The Applicant has explained that he engages in hoarding behaviours which have led to the accumulation of many items in his home. In the first half of 2024, the Applicant and his carer moved to a new residence. However, due to time constraints, other people packed his possessions into boxes without sorting anything and without labelling the boxes.[56] This resulted in a situation whereby, as at late 2024, the living area, garage and outdoor undercover area of his new residence were “almost entirely taken up with stacked boxes and other items”.[57]
[56] Applicant’s submissions dated 30 September 2024, at [78].
[57] Applicant’s submissions dated 30 September 2024, at [79].
The Applicant relies on Jasse Jang’s letter of 11 June 2024 outlining his inability to unpack these boxes and determine which items are to be disposed of, and his need for support and assistance with this. I note Jasse Jang has recommended the Applicant be assisted to organise and sort the accumulated items, dispose of unnecessary items in a hygienic manner and complete “thorough dwelling cleaning post disposal”.[58] They have also provided an estimate of the cost involved in engaging a decluttering specialist, in the amount of $7,481.80 based on 40 hours over 10 sessions, and provider travel.[59].
[58] TB 13/47-49.
[59] TB 18/76-77.
In his final submission, the Applicant supported this request by reference to the fact that, although additional support worker hours had been provided, “these cannot be used inside the Applicant’s home due to their social phobia”.[60] Submissions were also made to the effect that what was required was a professional removal service “to ensure the applicant’s home is safely and effectively cleared of unnecessary items”.[61] The Applicant also stated “the process of sorting and discarding items is both psychologically overwhelming and impossible without practical, hands-on assistance”.[62]
[60] At p 11.
[61] At p 11.
[62] At p 11.
It remains very unclear from the Applicant’s submissions what form of assistance will be most effective in clearing the excess items from his home, and precisely why a decluttering specialist is required.
The Respondent does not accept a decluttering specialist is required, and has made a number of contentions with respect to this issue, including:
(a)Neither Jasse Jang or any other professional has recommended a decluttering specialist;
(b)It is unclear why a regular support worker could not assist the Applicant to go through the boxes and dispose of unnecessary items;
(c)The additional 10 hours of one-off support from an occupational therapist to assist with decluttering (which the Respondent has agreed to) should be sufficient to assist the Applicant with decluttering; and
(d)In the circumstances, the requested support does not represent value for money for the purpose of s 34(1)(c) of the Act.[63]
[63] Respondent’s Amended SOFIC, at [70]-[75].

On balance, I accept the Respondent’s contention that the evidence does not establish the need for a decluttering specialist. In particular, I accept it has not been established that this support is reasonable and necessary in the absence of any professional recommendation that a decluttering specialist is required.
I also accept there is considerable support already available to the Applicant, including four hours of support worker assistance each week for cleaning and decluttering. To the extent the Applicant is unable to access this support due to his social phobia, it is unclear why his social phobia would not also prevent him from engaging with a decluttering specialist. In my view, a combination of the psychology and occupational therapy supports already available to the Applicant, the additional support worker hours and the additional occupational therapy hours agreed to by the Respondent should be sufficient to meet this need and allow the Applicant to gradually sort through the excess items in his home and arrange for their removal.
I am therefore not satisfied that additional funding for a decluttering specialist is reasonable or necessary.
(k) Additional 10 hours one-off support from an occupational therapist to assist with decluttering
I note the Respondent concedes this support is required.
In his final submission, the Applicant expressed appreciation for this, but also requested that “where possible, this funding be directed to a different source, which will allow for an individual to physically remove the hoarded materials…”.[64] With respect to physical assistance, as canvassed above, to the extent this is required because of the Applicant’s relevant impairments, this can be provided by support workers noting the allocation of 4 hours per week for that support.
[64] At p 12.
On balance and noting the Respondent’s concession, I am satisfied this support is reasonable and necessary. Of course, it will be a matter for the Applicant as to whether he accesses this support.
(l) Podiatry services
The Applicant is also seeking to have podiatry services added to his SOPS, and has provided a quote for the required services, which totals $6,725.71.[65]
[65] Applicant’s submission 30 September 2024, Annexure 4.
However, as the Respondent has pointed out, following the amendments to the Supports Rules, the following are not NDIS supports for the purposes of s 34(1)(f) of the Act:[66]
(a)the diagnosis, early intervention and clinical treatment of health and dental health conditions, including ongoing chronic health conditions;
(b)equipment or assistive products prescribed or issued as a result of clinical care, treatment or management from a medical practitioner and then delivered in the clinical setting, unrelated to the person’s disability;
(c)surgical services or procedures related to aids and equipment.
[66] Item 12, Schedule 2 to the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules.
In addition, the Respondent has pointed out that the need for the recommended podiatry services would not appear to be related to the impairments for which the Applicant was granted access to the NDIS.
In his final submissions, the Applicant asserts that his need for podiatry services is “attributable to and a cause of the Applicant’s disability”[67] and the impacts of his impairments have “severely limited them from seeking appropriate care at times, resulting in significant and ongoing podiatry issues”.[68] The Applicant also asserts that he is unable to “self-manage basic foot care” and relies on professional podiatry services for “maintenance and monitoring”.[69]
[67] At p 12.
[68] At p 12.
[69] At p 12.
He has also provided a further report dated 29 January 2025 from Dr Abdel Kak, Podiatric Surgeon, of the Sydney Foot Clinic.[70] In that report Dr Kak notes the Applicant’s assertion that over time, his mental health has been a “major barrier in causing ongoing foot and nail concerns…” but does not endorse or support this. Dr Kak also notes that a herniated disc in the Applicant’s back left him “unable to care for his foot and nails in an adequate manner”.
[70] Annexure A to Applicant’s Final Submissions.
I have had regard to the Applicant’s assertions as to the impact of his mental health and disabilities on the condition of his feet and nails. However no medical evidence has been provided in support of the proposition that the Applicant’s foot and nail problems are related to his relevant impairments. I also note Dr Kak’s report in which he observes it is the Applicant’s back issues which have left him unable to care for his feet and nails.
On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied the Applicant’s need for podiatry services is related to his relevant impairments. I therefore accept the Respondent’s arguments with respect to this support, namely that the services sought are not an NDIS support under the amended Supports Rules, and do not relate to the Applicant’s disability. Accordingly, I am not satisfied it is properly open to me to include the services sought in the Applicant’s SOP.
(m) Eligibility for SDA
In his submission of 30 September 2024, the Applicant sought to have his eligibility for SDA determined and confirmed he wished the Tribunal to review the Agency’s internal review decision of 11 October 2022 relating to SDA,[71] the subject of Application 2022/9238. This position was maintained at the hearing.
[71] At [54]-[60].
However, in his final submission the Applicant stated:
“To clarify, the applicant does not “now” seek to be determined eligible for SDA. However, they have consistently requested SDA supports for when their current informal carer is no longer available.”
The difficulty with the Applicant’s ultimate position is that I only have jurisdiction with respect to the two decisions under review (and any subsequent SOPS which has come into existence while this matter has been on foot)[72]. It follows that I am limited to determining the supports which are reasonable and necessary for the Applicant as at the date of my decision, including whether SDA is reasonable and necessary now. I have no power or jurisdiction with respect to what the Applicant may require in the future and, unfortunately from the Applicant’s point of view, this difficulty is insurmountable.
[72] NDIS Act, s 103(2).
As the Applicant himself does not consider he needs SDA now and is not seeking to have SDA included in his current plan, and I have no jurisdiction with respect to any future plan, it is unnecessary for me to determine this issue. However, as the issue has been the subject of submissions from both parties, I will briefly discuss it and indicate what my conclusion would have been if this issue had arisen for determination.
I note that in his submission of 30 September 2024, the Applicant argued that the fact his disabilities are “mental rather than physical” should not be a barrier to his eligibility for SDA.[73] Although he indicated he was not able to tolerate anyone attending his home, he also contended he required support to be “on hand” and this need would be met by SDA.[74] He relied on the report of Jasse Jang dated 13 January 2022, in which they reported the Applicant required access to support “20-23 hours per day”.[75] They also expressed the opinion the Applicant had an extreme functional impairment, extremely reduced capacity for self-care and self-management, and a very high need for person to person supports.[76]
[73] At [60].
[74] At [60].
[75] T7/49.
[76] T7/49.
Jasse Jang also reported however that the Applicant did not currently have any formal supports in place and was independent with mobility, stairs and transfers.[77] Although they recommended support with showering, toileting and feeding, the rationale for this was not made clear in their report and at the time of the assessment the Applicant was carrying out these tasks independently, albeit in some cases in a modified manner. They also reported the Applicant was independent with finances, medication and making appointments, although he had some difficulty keeping appointments.[78] In addition, they indicated that neither a group home with supported independent living or a residential aged care facility would be appropriate for the Applicant as he “has been living independently for his whole life”.[79]
[77] T7/50.
[78] T7/54.
[79] T7/57.
For completeness, I note the Applicant also contends that provision of SDA would help him meet his goal of “staving off dementia” and provide an opportunity to “engage in graded exposure therapy that addresses his social phobias”.[80]
[80] Submission 30 September 2024, at p 10.
However, as pointed out by the Respondent, rule 11 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Specialist Disability Accommodation) Rules 2020 (Cth) (SDA Rules) specifies that to be eligible for SDA supports a participant must have “an extreme functional impairment with respect to mobility, self-care or self-management”.[81] Based on Jasse Jang’s assessment in 2021, the Applicant was essentially independent with respect to all these domains. As there are no other relevant assessments currently before me, I am not satisfied on the material available that the Applicant currently has an extreme functional impairment with respect to mobility, self-care or self-management, as required by the SDA Rules. It follows that if it had been necessary to determine this issue, I would not have been satisfied the Applicant is currently eligible for SDA.
[81] Rule 12.
Support Co-ordination
At a Directions Hearing convened after the hearing and in his final submission, the Applicant also contended the amount allowed for support co-ordination in his SOPS should be increased, stating that the amount currently allowed for support co-ordination had been halved relative to a previous SOPS.
I note that in the Applicant’s SOPS of 15 December 2020 – 15 December 2022, $42,058.80 was allowed for Level 2 Support Co-ordination, which included “support for identifying appropriate housing solutions”.[82] In his SOPS of 18 August 2022 – 17 August 2024, $21,630.24 was allowed for support co-ordination based on 9 hours per month of Level 2 Support Co-ordination.[83] I understand that in his SOPS of 9 May 2023 – 8 May 2025, $10,815.12 per year was included, again based on 9 hours per month of Level 2 Support Co-ordination.[84] This has been replicated in his recently extended plan, which allows for $32,386.26 over three years, or $10, 795.42 per year.
[82] T Documents, 2022/9769, p 84.
[83] T-Documents, 2022/9769, p 99.
[84] Respondent’s Amended SOFIC, Annexure A.
In his final submissions, the Applicant contended that the reduction in support co-ordination from what had been allowed in 2020 had had “a considerable impact on the applicant’s ability to manage and coordinate the various aspects of their care”[85] and made it “increasingly difficult to effectively coordinate their supports”.[86] However, he has not provided any details of precisely what the relevant difficulties are, what supports are affected, or how exactly the co-ordination of his supports would be improved by additional funding. Nor has he outlined the number of hours he says are currently required, and how these would be utilised. It would have been helpful to hear from a current or prospective support co-ordinator as to how many hours are currently required for the Applicant and why.
[85] At p 3.
[86] At p 4.
While I understand the Applicant is seeking to have the level of funding in his 2020 plan “restored”, the relevant question for me is what level of support co-ordination is currently reasonable and necessary? On the very limited information he has provided, I am not satisfied it is reasonable or necessary to increase the budget currently available for this support.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons I have given, I have ultimately decided to make the following changes to the Applicant’s current SOPS:
(a)Specify that $3,000 of the Applicant’s core supports budget for consumables is to be self-managed;
(b)Allow 25 hours per year for occupational therapy (increased from 15 hours) to support the Applicant with decluttering (as agreed to by the Respondent);
(c)Allow 4 hours per week (increased from 2 hours) of support worker assistance for House Cleaning and Other Household Activities (as also agreed to by the Respondent);
(d)Specify a review date of 24 months from commencement of the varied plan.
With respect to SDA, I also propose to affirm the internal review decision of 11 October 2022 which determined the Applicant was not eligible for SDA (or Supported Independent Living).
DECISION
In Application 2022/9238, the Applicant’s current SOPS is varied as follows:
(a)A budget of $3,000.00 per year for consumables within the Applicant’s existing core supports budget is to be self-managed;
(b)The amount allowed for occupational therapy is to be increased from 15 to 25 hours per year;
(c)The amount allowed for support worker assistance with House Cleaning and Other Household Activities is to be increased from 2 to 4 hours per week;
(d)The review date is to be in 24 months from when the varied SOPS is implemented; and
(e)All other supports are to be replicated on a pro rata basis.
In Application 2022/9769, the decision under review is affirmed.