Despite the Tribunal advising NSWTG to make a fresh application for an age pension for YYYYY, and despite DZJ following up the advice with an email to NSWTG, it is more likely they will instead refuse, prefering to sabotage her finances in order to justify selling her house (and ultimately profit themselves).
That sale decision from the outset denies DZJ prodedural fairness because NSWTG did not consult with him first. The only consultation was done regarding a previous attempt to sell the house. DZJ defeated that previous decision in a Tribunal hearing where it was determined TAG were not respecting the general principles of the NSW Guardianship Act (s4e) and neither does the current decision because the Tribunal considers it reasonable that DZJ should commute what amounts to nine hours daily to maintain his care for his mother YYYYY.
The reason NSWTG give for their reluctance to apply to Centrelink is that they believe the pension eligibility rules operate like a ratchet - that once a person no longer qualifies, they never can qualify again, and yet a transcript of a conversation with a Centrelink officer reveals this is not so. Their reluctance is in opposition to their own official stance that they only sell property as a last resort.
In fact if due diligence had been executed (I am not sure if the failure is by NSWTG or by Centrelink themselves) YYYYY's pension would automatically resume.
Even without this pension YYYYY could afford to keep her house anyhow because she has over $20,000 in liquid assets and yet her annual financial standing is a shortfall of only $2,000. In fact her liquid assets may even be over $33,000 if it can be proven that it was improper for TAG to charge legal fees when they lost their first attempt to sell the house.
Besides, if DZJ succeeds in getting his friend to replace NSWTG as financial managers, the resulting saving from the hitherto $15,000 annual FM fees would more than cover any shortfall (even by the estimates of NSWTG). An NCAT Appeal is being heard regarding that on 25th August 2022. The Reasons for Decision being appealed were absurd as detailed in DZJ's submission.
