NCAT Refuses to Summons Evidence Central to Hearing

Dee faces eviction from the family home which he lives in and also runs with lodgers - half of the rent pays his Mum's aged care fees, the other half pays The Public Trustee (who do almost nothing except scheme ways to sell the home to profiteer). His Mum had her pension cancelled which threatens the viability of the current situation, but Dee believes she could have it resumed if The Trustee would perform their legal duty and declare the rent earned to MyAgedCare (which Dee suspects they have not done),

It seems that the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) is helping NSW Trustee & Guardian to hide potential welfare fraud with a registrar refusing Dee's summons of documents to settle the matter. At least it seems that way on the balance of probabilities.

The following is Dee's reasoning for summonsing documents from NSWTG, which he gave NCAT in his summons application.

To establish the veracity of the assertion by NSWTG that "We have advised My Aged Care of the situation so we are up to date with the matter at hand" [said at 1h21m03s by Maria Pywell to Senior Member Jen Halbert in audio of hearing 2017/00197618] (see attached mp3).

This is CRITICAL to whether the house needs to be sold (the key issue of 2022/00057900).

Rules of MyAgedCare state that if the NSWTG client has income greater than $28,472.59 (which she does from rent) then she must pay a regular DAC fee ($12.38) to her Aged Care Facility which in turn makes her eligible for a pension.

Reinstatement of pension would obviate any need to sell the house of the client.

My past summons have proved NSWTG to have not told the truth.

Dee requested "Any documentation of communications with MyAgedCare regarding the rental income being collected on behalf of client XXXXXXXXX".

Dee had already had problems with this bumbling registrar in the past, so he asked for a review, changing his wording to  "I would like a copy of the correspondence where NSWG claim to have notified MyAgedCare of the rental income of their client XXXXXXXXX" but was refused again by Senior Member Craig Mulvey for similar absurd reasons (calling my request "oppressively broad" and irrelevant).