On the instructions of the Public Trustee

You often see this on real estate advertisements.

It is the equivalent of saying “liquidator’s sale” or “deceased estate.”

In real-estate speak it is an invitation to snap up a bargain.  The property (which may or may not be a bit run down) must be sold.

It’s not just a matter of deceased estates.  Commonly, a sale on the instructions of the public trustee will occur when an elderly person’s affairs are committed to its management and the house has to be sold in order to meet the expenses of that person’s new accommodation.

It turns out (though this will hardly come as a surprise to anyone who has dealt with the Public Trustee) that those instructions do not amount to much.  If you are a family member, you might want to do something about that.  But it can be difficult getting the Trustee to pay any attention to you.  Quite possibly the Trustee is under-resourced.  More troublingly, because the Public Trustee is often appointed out of situatons of family conflict or to manage the affairs of less-competent members of society, there seems to be an institutional tendency to discount and disregard such troublesome interventions.  Neutrality may be the goal but minimalism verging on inaction often seems to be the outcome.

The problem is that the Public Trustee’s discretion is so broad that its decisions and actions (or, more commonly, inactions) are practically unreviewable.  I have yet to see a case where the trustee has been properly taken to task.  It is all too hard.  If anyone complains, the trustee can hide behind the skirts of antecedent familial disputes and it would be a brave judicial officer or tribunal which would step in.

AMC and ALQ v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2012] NSWADT 217 is a recent case in point.

The NSW Guardianship Tribunal appointed the public trustee financial manager of AMC’s affairs.  Prior to the appointment, AMC’s house of 60 years had been on the market, though it isn’t clear from the report who was really driving that decision.  After the appointment, the Trustee called off that sale (why?) then called the sale on again.  In between, a new villa was bought for AMC in a different part of town (presumably in an old people’s development) and the sale of AMC’s house was needed to pay out the mortgage taken for that purchase.  The property went on the market on 21 August 2012 with an auction due on 15 September 2012.  Prior to the inspection period, AMC’s daughter and that daughter’s teenage son had still been living in the house.  No effort at all seems to have been taken to make the house presentable.  AMQ, AMC’s son, went along to the inspection and saw that it was in a state of disarray in some rooms, for example unmade beds, unwashed items in the kitchen sink and the like.  He also thought that a better effort could be made to market the property with a view to emphasising its redevelopment potential.

On 7 September 2012, AMQ’s solicitor wrote to the Trustee about this.  Presumably ALQ had made some previous attempt to raise this with the Trustee.  The Trustee did not respond.

AMQ appealed to the ADT against the Trustee’s decision to sell the property as presently proposed and specifically sought an interim stay of that decision – that is, a delay on the auction in order (ALQ said) to enable a better marketing campaign.

As well as complaining about the marketing and presentation, AMQ also complained that the Trustee would not reveal to him its proposed reserve price.  Judge K P Connor accepted that this was confidential and need not be disclosed.  The Trustee had had problems with this in the past.

He was more critical of the conduct of the sale.

At the hearing, Richard Mosvessian of Century 21 Real Estate Randwick, gave evidence by the phone about the marketing campaign.  He:

“confirmed that the son’s assertions regarding the state of some the rooms on the recent open days was accurate. He disputed the son’s contention that it mattered how a property of this kind was presented. He said that the interested market looked past these things, and focussed on the essentials of the property and such matters as the possible cost of renovation. He rejected the practicality of marketing the property as one with subdivisional and redevelopment potential. He referred to the number of parties that had inspected the property, the number of
contracts that had been issued, and the number of building inspections that had been obtained by interested parties.”

The mind boggles about Mr Mosvessian’s views about how a property is presented.  Is that the advice that Mr Mosvessian gives to all his vendors?

Mr Caldwell, the Trustee’s property manager, stated that no special instructions were given to agents engaged to handle clients’ properties as to how they were presented for sale, and the office [of the Public Trustee] did no monitoring in that regard.

Judge Connor was clearly taken aback:

21 The evidence of the poor state of the presentation of the property at open days has been available now for some time. I have noticed in the paperwork that Mr Mendelssohn (solicitor for the applicants) commenced to take action formally on 7 September 2012 (see letter of complaint to the NSW Trustee). It may be that he engaged in representations of a more informal character predating that date.

22 I think it is a matter of concern that the evidence of these issues was raised by the son and Mr Mendelssohn with the NSW Trustee and met, it would seem, with no action. My firm opinion is that the office should proceed on a principle of respect for the protected person’s likely views on the matter, in relation to the way in which their homes are presented to market. I do not understand my view to be that of the office. As I have understood it from Mr Caldwell (Manager, NSW Trustee), the office is relatively inactive in that matter and leaves things entirely to the discretion of the agent.

23 It is clear from the evidence today that Mr Movsessian has made his own call on this issue. He appears not to be of a view that this matter is of importance in terms of the market, and that closes the issue in his mind.

24 I think this is something that would matter to the protected person and their family; and it did seem to matter to the mother and her son in this case. It is a matter of regret that we have had this sort of insouciance in relation to this issue.

25 I accept having said that, that there are houses often that the NSW Trustee is called on to manage and put to market that are in shocking states of disrepair. I am not talking about houses of that kind. I am talking about houses that are within the ordinary framework of home management.

Respect and regret for its lack is one thing (or maybe they are two); overturning a decision of the Trustee is another.   The lettuce leaf got limper.

26Nevertheless it seems to me that the factors of prejudice that exist today are such that it would be inappropriate of me to make a restraining order at this late stage. I accept what Mr Movsessian says that there had been a significant level of buyer interest, evidenced by various contracts going out.

The main prejudice was, as far as I can make out, that AMC had already bought a new place and had a mortgage to pay off plus, presumably, some expenses of advertising.  The other potential prejudice from any sub-par presentation of the house was let through to the keeper with regret.  It’s water under the bridge.

Judge Connor expressly accepted the concerns expressed by the son and his mother, but the decision stood with the mildest of rebukes to the Trustee:

31I think it would have been more respectful had the property been presented in a better way. I think though it is now too late and too close to the auction date to interfere so radically with the decision that has been taken. Some reassurance can at least be obtained from the fact that there is the level of activity and interest in the property that has been indicated.

32For those various reasons I am not prepared to intervene.

33I do not for a moment think it is an entirely happy state of affairs that we have experienced today.

34We hear cases here frequently where there is criticism of the unavailability of estate officers to people with grievances. I realise that your officers, Mr Caldwell, are under enormous pressure and often are faced with difficulty in dealing with representations. We also hear complaints about phones not being answered. The Tribunal had that experience today when it was unable to reach you at the appointed time on the number you had given; it constantly went to message.

35So I just hope you can take some of those concerns back into the office administration and do what you can to improve levels of communication.

I’m sure that was a lot of comfort to ALQ and (to the extent that she was able to understand what was going on) AMC.

Or not.

40 Responses to “On the instructions of the Public Trustee”

  1. concerned concerned concerned Says:

    I and others I am sure can relate to this matter. As in my father’s case the NSWTG allowed a long lost relative to sell my father’s home within 2 weeks of an interim guardianship, and buy inappropriate accommodation for my father – that being a villa for over 55’s with no onsite care. He was suffering chronic dementia and other serious medical conditions and at 90 yrs of age. Even though we tried to get the NSWTG to intervene and ensure his living arrangements were appropriate for the level of care he now required – as far as they were concerned that had ticked there bureaucratic boxes and that was all that mattered. He died 4 mths later after settlement of that property – with no one looking after him that had any sort of medical or nursing qualifications I understand. !!!!! The new major beneficiaries of his Will were not concerned with any of our issues of what transpired.
    Justice McLaughlin’s statements in MacDonald v Public Trustee (2010) NSWSC – are very interesting and I can understand from my experience why he stated what he did.

  2. Legal Eagle Says:

    :-( That’s awful. And not what a trustee should be.

  3. Jean Haynes Says:

    I see the Trustee in action more frequently than I’d wish. My work has over many years has involved me peripherally in assisting in the transition of elderly and frail people from their homes to other accommodations more suitable to their advancing ages and future needs.

    Some care seems generally to be taken to try help place the person or to find a place for them appropriate to their needs and wishes if they have not already done so for themselves or are incapable of doing so. This level of care and concern seems however to be severely limited by time and staff availability. This is usually the duty of the Office of the Public Guardian if that Office has been appointed to make decisions on the person’s behalf or to assist them in doing so due to incapacity, illness or for some other reason deemed necessary.

    However, I have constantly been amazed that it seems that once appointed, the Trustee is always in what is best described as “uncommon” and even inappropriate haste to sell and realise the financial value their subject client’s home. From my observations over the years, this has frequently resulted in deep distress and unnecessary emotional upset to the subject clients.

    More commonly than not I have observed that the Trustee chooses to appoint agents not remotely local to, or intimately familiar with the area in which the client’s home or property is located. These agents are frequently inappropriate to the properties being sold as they have no potential buyers waiting for property on their client base looking in that locale. These non local / out of area agents also frequently have no expertise or micro-knowledge of the area because they are not from the area themselves and are poorly acquainted with it.
    As a result I have often observed fine and sometimes even very elegant homes being poorly or inappropriately marketed and being what could only be described as”being grossly and knowingly undersold” to potential purchasers in the interests of “expediency” / a “quick and easy sale”. Naturally these decisions have frequently highly distressed the owners of the homes concerned for whom these properties have not infrequently represented a lifetime investment.

    In all that time I do not ever recall actually seeing or hearing of an Officer from the Trustee taking any responsibility for that Office’s actions. It seems outrageous that the Office should have been allowed to get away with such an “all care but no responsibility attitude” for so long. I understand the Office of the NSW Trustee charges very handsomely for their services.

    From information I have received the Trustee’s charges imposed on their subject clients would appear to be very significantly higher than those charged by well established banks, trust companies and funds managers to perform similar financial management and asset realisation tasks for consensual clients. In real terms the Trustees charges seem to be manifestly unreasonable and unjustifiable on the basis of any commercial comparisons available to me, if not quite possibly punitive or extortionate.

    I have actively observed large and sometimes very elegant homes being knowingly undersold by real estate agents engaged by the Trustee to act in these sales on their behalf. In some instances of which I’m aware this has resulted in properties being sold for multiples of hundreds of thousands of dollars below the very recently realised sale values of immediately adjacent and less sizeable properties. In one instance I have every reason to believe that the agent appointed by the Trustee may have sold a property for significantly over a million dollars less than its real market value because the agent appointed was from an agency almost 20 kilometres away and simply wanted a quick sale at the Yrustee’s insistence.

    During one very memorable inspection at which I was present with an owner whose property was being sold. A potential buyer approached the selling agent appointed by the Trustee, unaware that the owner and I were almost beside them. This buyer audibly advised the real estate agent present for the inspection that they’d recently spoken with the Office of the Trustee. The buyer went on to inform the agent that they’d been assured by the Trustee that the property’s reserve was going to be at a “give-away” price as the owner had to relocate. The real estate agent concerned made no real attempt to dissuade the buyer of that view or to encourage better prospects for the property, merely drawing the buyer to another room to discuss the property out of the owner’s audible range.

    Naturally the emotional and health consequences of this to the person whose property it was were very significant. Similar protestations to the real estate agent and the Trustees by the owner and their family as those in this case of ACM to the Trustee also went unheeded and un-responded to.

    The subject property was indeed sold for many hundreds of thousands of dollars below the sale price achieved, only seven days prior, for a less attractive and smaller property located perhaps a hundred metres away in less desirable part of the same street. Unsurprisingly this micro-market abberation of some 20% was subsequently attributed by the selling agent to “market factors on the day”. Yet the property was sold at the height of the boom in values, according to widely canvassed local opinion it was popularly expected to attain as much as half a million dollars more than the selling price it achieved. Perhaps bargain hunters were put off by the agent’s lax attitude ? Perhaps they were also consequently suspicious that there may be an undisclosed or hidden defect with the property. Naturally the effects of the very poor sale price of the home on the elderly and frail owner were devastating. Their health declined rapidly and they died within 6 months in a state of deep depression brought on primarily by this devastatingly poor sale result.

    I am caused to wonder if it not time that there was a Commission of Enquiry into the conduct of the Office of the NSW Public Trustee. There seem clear grounds to suggest it is insufficiently accountable and by either inaction or inappropriate action whether knowingly or otherwise frequently, substantially and often very negatively impacts the realisation price of the majority of its clients’ primary assets, their home. The outrageously and unacceptably high fees and charges the Trustee levies against its clients is cause for an Enquiry in its own right.

    When, I respectfully wonder, will the NSW Courts, legal system and the Parliament act vigorously to remedy this dreadful situation ? When will the Trustee’s Officers be properly and fully accountable and answerable ? When will selling real estate agents appointed by the Trustee be compulsorily instructed to maximise rather than minimise a property’s price ? When indeed will the Trustee take on adequate and diligent responsibility for appointing area appropriate agents and ensuring adequate supervision and governance of the agents appointed in the course of the sale of these properties ? Is this too much to ask ?
    Given the extortionate fees that the Trustee appears to charge I think it is not merely their duty in law but their moral obligation. Sadly it seems that those tasked with this delicate and difficult obligation tend to opt for the course requiring the very least effort for the most enormous fees. Were it competing to perform its duties in a more commercially oriented environment the Office of the Public Trustee would surely have to close its doors as no one would engage them on the basis of the fees they charge for the services they appear to provide ?

    • marcellous Says:

      I at first thought from your email address that your comments relate to the Trustee and Guardian in the UK.

      Estates are laborious to administer. It’s not as if the NSW Trustee does anything other than cover its costs. I would hesitate before describing the Trustee’s fees as “extortionate.” However, any fee is objectionable if a poor job has been done.

      • Jean Haynes Says:

        I have been involved with the management and care of the elderly and of their personal and financial affairs in NSW for many years. My comments are considered after witnessing multiple interventions by that office which have actively diminished the asset values of those whose affairs the Trustees were appointed to protect and whose assets they were appointed to maximise.

        It might well be worth noting that the Trustee is, in the normal course of affairs “imposed” on their subject client by order of the Court. Whether that subject desires this or not the State directs this business to an entity which is inherently inefficient and open to investigation.

        I agree that estates and the affairs of those under the Public Trustee are a laborious matter to administer. That is not the issue at hand in my comments.

        I would respectfully suggest that you carefully compare the scale of fees charged by the Office of the NSW Public Trustee for administration services to those charged by reputable legal and financial firms for similar responsibilities. (I do not here include all but the vast majority of comparable privately run entities).

        At entry / in the “first year” the Trustee is entitled to a fee I think you may well find to be something closer to 3 to 5 times higher than similar “entry fees” charged by other firms and entities. Ongoing fees for maintenance and admin after the first year are in factors of upwards of ten times those charged by other private entities.

        The question is not only whether the entity responsible for the administration of an elderly person’s affairs is caring and prudent. It’s all very good to do what’s known as good “tea and sympathy”, but that’s not what clients are paying for nor is it why their affairs are entrusted by the State at the direction of the Courts to a non familiar ir friendly entity.

        The questions are more likely :- (Not in order of priority)

        1.) Whether the entity entrusted with the management of these affairs is providing adequate and timely supervision and response in critical stages of the realisation of a subject protected person’s assets. (My personal experience over decades in this area is that the Trustee’s actions in this area leave much to be desired).

        2.) Whether through actions or inactions; either prodcedural, intentional or unintentional; the actions of the Trustee in the sale of properties has or continues to denigrate the value of properties and significantly materially and adversely affect the pool of funds available for the subject person’s welfare. (In this respect your own comments on the sale of properties with signs reading “Under the Instructions of the Public Trustee “.. being an invitation to bargain hunters provides a rhetorical answer)

        3.) Whether the Office of the Public Trustee provides adequate, competent and timely supervision to, attention to and respect of the subject person’s desires relating to their own affairs and the realisation of their assets. (Clearly reading the comments from His Honour in the above matter, from your own comments and from my long experience they do not. At times they fail to do so to the point where this lack of attention and supervision as well as wilful ignorance or failure to act borders on the actionably negligent and adversely impacts their clients’ future welfare to the extent of many hundreds of thousands of dollars and sometimes in excess this to millions of dollars).

        4.) Whether the Trustee’s services are adequate for the fees charged in comparison to commercially competing entities with similar responsibilities. (The most astute and diligent comparison would clearly demonstrate that this is not the case and that the Trustee’s fees are absurdly high if not “meteoric” by comparison).

        5.) Whether Officers within the Office of the Trustee have individually or collectively legal accountability for their actions and whether on the examination of an independent Court appointed arbiter the Office of the Trustee or its Officers can be held financially accountable for economic loss they have, either systemically, unintentionally or intentionally caused through their actions or lack thereof. ( I suspect that His Honour’s own comments on the apparent lack of procedures and his own inability to contact a senior Officer to provide testimony at a Court appointed time is sufficient to suggest there is little or no accountability at all. Whenever did any Government agency ever open it’s doors willingly to public examination for incompetence ? The usual practice is to hide behind the inviolability of the entity and to obfuscate till there’s an external Government Enquiry or Royal Commission which enforces statutory change and usually “out-places” or “re-assigns” those previously responsible for incompetence).

        In all of the above points I find would generally find for the Applicant and not the Trustee. Regrettably this is by dint of the years I have spent in this field and the number of times where I have witnessed “non optimal” and even “highly damaging” outcomes at the Trustee’s directions or lack thereof.

        At least when dealing with a commercial or private legal entity in a similar circumstance of the administration of affairs there is a rapid right to substantial economic redress and compensation. With the Trustee this is almost impossible both legislatively and functionally.

        The comment that the task of administration is difficult is worthy of note.

        The real task however is to determine whether the Statutory Agency ;(The NSW Office of the Public Trustee); is competent and performs to maximise its clients’ financial and personal interests and whether this entity is sufficiently accountable. In all of these I respectfully submit that it is not at present and historically never has been.

        A Parliamentary Enquiry or Royal Commission is long overdue. Thousands of former and present clients of the Trustee have been and will continue to be adversely impacted until change and regulatory and systemic change is imposed on the Trustee legislatively or by Court precedent.

        How else do you truly believe change can be effected as a distinguished gentleman of the Law ? Perhaps you have an alternate suggestion ?

        I await your learned and considered response to these humble submissions

      • marcellous Says:

        Jean

        I have to take on trust right now your comments about the fees charged by the Trustee. Others can check that out if they like. I know the fee structure was revised a few years ago. I just don’t know how it compares to private entities (who are, after all, still subject to the overall supervision of the Trustee).

        No need for you to butter me up as a “distinguished gentleman of the law.” My own view is that some kind of inquiry is in order (rather than, as some other commenter has suggested, a class action) and that there probably needs to be a bit of legislative as well as administrative reform. I see this as more a political than a legal question.

        In the meantime, on the legal front, I’d “humbly submit” that the courts and tribunals should (1) be less prepared to confide affairs to the management of the Trustee in the first place and more willing to entertain alternatives – it’s far too easy when faced with a family in conflict, for example, to “solve” the problem by appointing the Trustee as financial manager (there is a decision of Judge Judith Gibson refusing to appoint a family member to manage the affairs of a personal injury victim which just makes me want to scream out in exasperation); and (2) hold the Trustee to a higher standard than is presently the case, and be less prepared to allow all manner of in- or non-epttitude to be swept behind the skirting-board of “discretion.”

      • Joanne Says:

        Yes as their service is appalling.

  4. Heartsore and disgusted Says:

    I have heard many cases of this and my family is also at the mercy of both the Guardian and the Trustee. I would like to know if there is a decent firm of solicitors in NSW who would be prepared to mount a class action against both these Govt. bodies as I am sure there is a conga line of families with legitimate complaints. You have firms willing to act for refugees who are not residents or citizens but I dont know of any lawyers to date have been willing to mount a class action for its own citizens. Are there any out there who believe in seeking justice for us? There is enough evidence, we now need action.

    • marcellous Says:

      H&d: I doubt if a class action would do the trick because the facts of any individual case are too particular.

      There’s no point in being jealous of the assistance some lawyers are prepared to give to refugees. The stakes and issues are different.

  5. Heartsore and disgusted Says:

    Jealousy here is not relevant at any level. These are both human rights issues. Every legal matter has its variants but the core issues in this area are the same and I do believe a class action is mountable. You only have to read legal case histories to see the common thread of complaints against the Public Guardian and Trustee. Some of their behaviours are indefensible and contrary to the mandate under which they operate. As I said, we only need a willing and certainly competent expert lawyer to start the ball rolling. What do you suggest – leave the status quo and tread lightly on the ground when broken lives and families are left to languish? No point complaining if one is not prepared to do something about it! Thank you for your opinion anyway. Without a beginning you can’t have an outcome –
    I think it is time for a new beginning.

    • concerned concerned concerned Says:

      I totally agree with Heartsore and disgusted. What we have been through with the GT and NSWTG is inhumane. Not only was my father not protected – we became the victims on an insane system that in my opinion appears to be “above the law”. The issue with the GT is it is neither adversarial or non-adversarial, it was in my opinion blatantly bias with procedures made up as it suited the member and investigating officer. No medical experts were on the panel, and the member was having private meetings with my father’s brand new lawyer. The tribunal took no interest in informing itself with relevant tested facts. My mother denied as a witness for our party, a witness that has known my father for over 50 years. Documents handed in by the other party they would have assisted our case, we were note even afforded copies of and even under FOI they have refused to supply me copies of these documents- so much for a transparent system. The requirement for the tribunal to provide a fair process did not occur at all. Allowing appallingly defaming, abusive, and slanderous submissions to be used as I assume a probabilities standard, and thus merits of a case and therefore in my opinion bias of a case is only some of the issues that I am most outraged about.
      So much for a system that allows such appalling abuse of family members from written submissions trying to protect their loved one from elder abuse – Then there is no interest by the GT in applying any of the Act in following through on pages and pages of false and misleading statements. It truly is a system for those who know how to play it. From my experience it is a system that victimises and punishes the good will and intentions in individuals and thus applauds and supports the malevolent and immoral and unethical.
      Lastly how appalling is it that in a supposed egalitarian society that believes in a legal system of right of reply, procedural fairness, natural justice and standard of proof and facts based on evidence,-in my opinion does not occur at all in these type of tribunal settings.
      Section 53 of the Guardianship Act provides that the Tribunal may determine its own procedure but then in my opinion commit such bias to one party. In my opinion this sort of process becomes a very non-transparent and problematic system. In general, any tribunal that is allowed such moderation in its processes should ensure bias does not occur at all, including negligence and possible corruption.
      It is clear that on many occasions this current method of protecting “mentally ill” elders with chronic dementia and suffering paranoia and delusions is not working in this type of tribunal setting from my experience.
      As with the NSWTG, all responses have continually be unsatisfactory and in my opinion negating any responsibilities of outcomes from the NSWTG process and decisions.
      It appears bureaucracy has replaced humanity!
      I call for an urgent independent inquiry into these Govt. bodies, including a Police body set up to be able to investigate and over-ride these bodies in relation to fraud, elder abuse, and negligent care facilities allowed by the NSWTG.
      ICAC may help some – but I believe these bodies are so now past the point of return and something radical needs to occur from this Government.

      • VIRA Says:

        I totally agree with ‘On the instructions of the Public Trustee’ ‘concerned, concerned, concerned’ AND OTHERS. We need an overhaul of these bodies, who are supposed to be protecting the vulnerable. Being busy is not an excuse, they need to hire more people after all they are skimming off hefty sums for their mismanagement. It appears these bodies are not answerable, and they can run amok and ruin lives, of those seeking to protect their loved ones and those under the NSWGB. I note that the Guardianship tribunal can:
        1.The Tribunal appoints substitute decision markers for adults with a decision-making incapacity.
        THOSE WHO DECIDE OR SEEK THAT THE INDIVIDUAL LACKS DECISION MAKING CAPACITY ARE AS IN THE ‘On the instructions of the Public Trustee’ AND OTHER CASES HAVE NOTED, HAVE VESTED INTERESTS AND THE DOCTORS THAT MAKE THE ASSESSMENTS RELY ON THESE PEOPLE TO MAKE THEIR DECISION.
        This is not medicine and is NOT an independent unbiased assessment. Further, the assessments cannot cope with cultural differences and some agencies, eg ACAS, use tick boxes filled in by social workers and or nurses, to make their assessments.
        NOT APPROPRIATE.
        2. A guardian for personal lifestyle decisions.
        Again there might be a conflict of interest, IF the guardian is inappropriate.
        3. A financial manager for financial/legal decisions.
        As above and again, who checks that they are making the right decisions and that the estate is not being eroded. ALL guardians including the NSWGB, have a fiduciary duty.
        Hence, selling a property without concern for its market value, is NEGLIGENCE and the NSWBG should be made to make reparations.
        4. The Tribunal can also review enduring guardianship
        appointment and enduring powers of attorney.
        So how come they have failed in many of the cases? Allowing the abusers to continue their abuse.
        5. The Tribunal can also:
        Consent to medical treatment
        A body is inviolable (legislated) and even ‘a non compes mentas’ person has the right to refuse treatment
        Consent to special medical treatment (e.g. sterilisation)
        Approve clinical trials- are we back to Mengler’s years? again the body is inviolable: 46.111(a)(3), (a)(4) and (b) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects (45 CFR part 46) and the FDA regulations at 21 CFR 56.111(b). (these also need an overhaul BUT they are good starting point).
        An individual’s capacity to provide truly informed consent can be affected by other types of vulnerability such as poverty and deficits in education, undue influence or simply deemed to be lacking capacity.
        I note the tribunal, gave approval for 9 clinical trials and 1 direction to a guardian (2011-2012).
        SOMETHING IS VERY VERY WRONG.
        WE NEED AN OMBUDSMAN WITH REAL POWER WHO CAN OVERRULE THESE BODIES. WHY SHOULD PEOPLE SUFFER AND BE DENIED ACCESS TO INFORMATION WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO THEIR CASE.
        AUSTRALIA SHOULD BE ASHAMED.

      • VIRA Says:

        TOTALLY AGREE- APPALLING
        GOV AND OTHER BODIES ENTRUSTED TO FULFILL THEIR DUTY OF CARE AND OBLIGATIONS OFTEN ABROGATE THEIR BRIEFS BY BEING MORE CONCERNED ABOUT BEING SEEN TO BE DOING -TICK BOXES MEAN ‘BE SEEN TO BE DOING’ BUT NOT ACTUALLY DOING- just look at the mess aged care, nursing homes and child protection are in.

  6. Heartsore and disgusted Says:

    Again, I ask all the people who have contributed to this site. How can we all get together and do something – I want to DO something!
    Could Jean, perhaps, give some advice as to how to start. As she has had many years of experience in dealing with these entities, then she would perhaps be the best person, at this stage, to give us, or at at least, me, some direction. I know this is a juggernaut, I know that it will be a nightmare, I know that it will be a long and tortuous road but I have the moral fortitude to give me strength to start . Bureaucracy and humanity used in the same sentence is an “oxymoron”. I just want the right and the ability to try and bring about change and an avenue to remove my mother from the clutches of Govt. entities who serve no purpose in her “wellbeing”.
    TARS, OPT, GT all the Govt. bodies etc. are smoke and mirrors,
    toothless tigers who are employing the unemployable. I want to have control given back to families who rely on indisputable evidence to show that they are the best carers of the person under the Govt.’s clutches. I don’t want platitudes, complaints or even sympathy – I want outcomes – good outcomes – and I am prepared to go to bat for it. Who is willing to join in this battle for justice for our loved ones? I cannot be just a voice in the wilderness!

    I battled for years to look after my father and hit every barrier you could imagine because I wanted to have my dad at home with me. I have had nearly seven years of dealing with a system (Aged Care) that makes you ashamed to be a human being, particularly when you are dealing in the area of dementia. I won out in the end and I continued because I loved my dad so much and I would not feed him to be sharks just because he was sick, old and frail. Unfortunately, it is still the 80/20 rule – 80% of those working in the industry are pointless and the remaining 20% work and care like trojans just to make the wheels turn. What I am saying is, I have the fortitude to do this. Please will someone else stand up and be counted?

  7. concerned concerned concerned Says:

    Dear Heatsore – HELEN DALLEY the journalist ran a story re: Jon Blake the actor and his mothers desperate attempt to gain back control of her son. Four Corners may have also looked into these issues of Govt bodies like GT, PT and NSWTG, Your best option to get change is unfortunately often through the media – and someone like four corners has the resources and the ethics to run a decent story and show via evidence the urgent need for reform.

  8. VIRA Says:

    THE RULE IS NEVER GO NEAR GOV OR PRIVATE CO. TRUSTEES. CASE LAW SUPPORTS THIS ASSERTION.
    A STRONG LOBBY GROUP IS REQUIRED….NOTHING HURTS LIKE VOTES

    • Heartsore and disgusted Says:

      I am trying to get support from people who have been unjustly treated by the Guardian Tribunal, Public Guardian and Public Trustee. There is strength in numbers and this is needed when trying to push for inquiries and reforms. If you or anyone else is interested in joining with me to stir the winds of change, please contact me. These Govt. bodies must be reformed as soon as possible – change must occur but it will not happen in a vacuum. We all have a sad and sorry tale to tell; the suffering continues at the hands of these entities and they press on regardless. This is a human rights and public interest issue. These bodies display no care and no responsibility because they can and thus remain unchallenged. This must stop. If I can get enough support then I will have something concrete to present to official lobby groups who can assist and guide us in our goal. Please consider what the future will be if nothing is done and these faceless and destructive bureaucrats remain unchallenged!

      • max watts Says:

        I would be most interested in talking to you-we have been through 7 years of hell all created initially by the NSW guardianship tribunal

      • hb Says:

        I’m not sure if this is still a hot issue for you but if it is change.org seems to be a good place for instigation reform these days. I’d sign the petition if one came to me.

      • Tammy Russell Says:

        Hi, my son and I have experienced many unhappy years with the Public Trustee NSW. Please inform us how we get in touch. Thanks Tammy.

      • Yes Minister Says:

        There has been some interesting progress made in Queensland and which will have repercussions for kangaroo courts and their scumbag cohorts in all states. Anyone fair dinkum about destruction of the guardianship racket should contact 0488531824, 0466166105, 0407118893 or 0417200001. Note particularly that due to the number of establishment drones on the loose, we won’t publish details on an open website.Needless to say, the scum have a stranglehold over the media so don’t expect to read or see anything harmful to the grubs in the media.

      • marcellous Says:

        Mmmmm, I’m letting this through but don’t endorse such purple language.

  9. Former Trustee Says:

    I’m sorry to read these comments. Many of these comments relate to poor service from real estate agents, The public Guardian and Guardianship Tribunal.
    The NSW Trustee & Guardian is responsible for making the right financial decision’s for NSW residents who are incapable of making it themselves. This decision is made by the GT, Supreme Court or Mental Health review tribunal.

    There is a very strict process that the NSWTG must follow such as letters to children who refuse to leave their parents property to allows NSWTG to sell the house, as the client has only a few hundred dollars and tens of thousands in debt. Legally letters have to be sent sparatically, and cant happen at the click of a finger like some want.

    Also the staff at NSWTG a very passionate about there jobs, however as staff freezes have happened they are often under staffed and overwhelmed with work. The staff try their best under very very difficult circumstances and pressure applied by families.

    The NSW state Govt have applies these measures through their own budget restraints, no fault of their own.

    Ensure the staff of the NSWTG are very passionate, and always act in the best financial interest of the client. Not the children, grandchildren neighbours or friends. This upsets people, especially when property is involved. I mean god forbid the day people saved to buy their own property instead of relying on someone to die to inherit one.

    Anyhow, the staff do their best under very difficult circumstances. many staff have 100+ client’s, complaints may come from 1 or 2 of them. Not bad if you ask me. But people will always complain.

    • marcellous Says:

      FT

      I agree that the Trustee is under-resourced. That’s really my primary point. I’m sure that many of its employees are passionate about their work but I honestly cannot say (and who would expect?) that all of them are.

      As for your figure of a case load of over 100 clients, many estates are undemanding and the task of management is not onerous. (Nevertheless, for earning interest at about 2% on cash deposits, the Trustee presently takes a pretty healthy whack – is it a third or is it a quarter? I forget exactly save that I was astounded when I saw the figure.)

      Just as we judge a society by the care it extends to the weakest, it is not unreasonable to judge the Trustee by how it deals with the difficult cases, even if they are only 1 or 2 out of a hundred.

      Doubtless, the Trustee cannot give a family’s or even a protected person’s affairs the attention that the family might wish for or the protected person themselves might give, were they capable.

      I am however intrigued by your “god forbid” comment at the end. That suggests a profoundly narrow view of the Trustee’s responsibilities and the protected person’s interests. Surely, for example, the protected person, when they still had capacity, might have had wishes for their property which included some other people benefiting from that property? Should those wishes also not be respected, especially if, before the Trustee got involved, depredations have occurred?

      I’m not saying it is easy to determine the rights and wrongs in such situations, but the distinct impression I get is that the Trustee sets the bar for its own performance pretty low by choosing inaction over intervention if only by default.

    • Joanne Says:

      I find your personal comments outrageous and maybe this is why the NSW Trustees operate in their present culture.
      Surely when the client (usually a loved one) has passed on, the client then becomes the beneficiaries?
      Why should my mother have worked so hard her whole life to buy property and have someone in a government department undermine that after her death and sell cheaply? Is this acting in her best interest?
      The point is for the NSW Trustees to act professionally and with a duty of care in matters that ensure the estate is handled with the best possible outcome.

      • marcellous Says:

        I’d say the Former Trustee was addressing the issues which arise when the Trustee is managing the estate of a living person and in particular the difficulties when there are people who were living with (sometimes caring for but also sometimes dependent on, for all sorts of reasons which make the “God forbid” comment in my opinion misguidedly smug), usually, their mother.

  10. Heartsore and disgusted Says:

    Dear Former Trustee,

    Generally speaking, as far as public servants are concerned, my experience has been the 80/20 rule across the board and that means, 80% are below any acceptable standard and the remaining 20% carry the load. As you have taken the time to post a comment, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and include you in the 20%.

    I have come across two Public Trustees and six Guardians during the past 12 months and I can assure you that none of them have any understanding of their role, nor have they displayed any empathy or care for the protected person. The lack of basic common sense in their decision making and behaviour towards any genuinely loving and concerned family member of the protected person is disgraceful at best. When I have eventually made contact with them, they have always adopted a cavalier attitude of “them and us” no matter what the request or enquiry. Letters are rarely responded to, phone calls immediately go to message bank and not returned, payment of accounts are an afterthought and the list goes on. The sadness, heartache and misery they put the families through is the only job in which they excel.

    Not all “protected persons” have uncaring family members. Quite the contrary! Many of them are reasonable, loving and caring people who have involuntarily had their loved one placed under the control of the Public Guardian and Public Trustee. We can thank the Guardianship Tribunal for that as the Tribunal does not rely on evidence, truth or justice. It acts simply as “clearing house” for the Public Trustee and Guardian – a cheap Kangaroo Court at that! Had my family known the horror that lay ahead, I can assure you that none of us would have gone anywhere near the Tribunal. Wisdom in hindsight!

    Being under resourced is not an excuse for doing nothing well.
    You might as well do nothing because that is the end result. You do not –

    (a) know or understand the needs of the protected person,
    (b) know their cultural background,
    (c) know what their wishes were or are,
    (d) respect the key carer or recognise their role
    (e) know what is best for the protected person
    (f) nor are you concerned about their wellbeing.

    What you do know is that you “own” them and do as you wish with no real consideration or thought being given to your decision making. Not one of the Guardians or Trustees I have had dealings with appear to have an intellectual capacity, appropriate training or expertise in dealing with the special needs of an elderly person.

    As you were a Trustee rather than a Guardian let me say that my dealings with the Public Trustee have been no better. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Your accounting system is disgraceful. You do not understand basic economics and the tardiness in paying bills is an embarrassment. Many a time I have had to pay bills from my own funds in order to get what my mother needs and not fend off calls from suppliers asking why their invoices, submitted 60 days ago, have not been paid. And yes, the list goes on.

    You may have only had one or two complaints but I hazzard a guess that this is because no one even bothers any more because it is pointless.

    If you really want to know the truth of how low in estimation your former entity is held then listen to what the families, the legal fraternity (sotto voce) and anyone else who has to deal with the Gruesome Threesome (i.e. Tribunal, Guardian and Trustee) are saying because that is the reality. Just be grateful that you are no longer an employee of the Public Trustee because if you were you should hang your head in shame, if not for your conduct, then for the behaviour of vast army of “unemployables” who are still there.

    For the “passionate” employees who really do what the protected person wants and protects them from the vultures which I am sure are there, they have my respect. Unfortunately, I have yet to come across such a person. Perhaps you were the only one.

    • marcellous Says:

      H&D

      I’m letting that through as an expression of opinion on a matter of public interest which I do not necessarily endorse in all respects and also a generalisation which may have exceptions. In particular I doubt if there are “vultures” at any of these bodies. Shortcomings are a matter of case-hardened indifference and perhaps lack of acuity but mostly lack of adequate resources and attention as well as the risk-and trouble-averse path of doing nothing in the face of difficult family and other situations rather than taking pickings for themselves.

  11. concerned Says:

    Dear Former Trustee,

    I found your response the standard of what I have come to expect from people like the perpetrator that took control of my father, (a former senior public servant), to justify actions in their own mind so they can live with themselves. At the end of the day you received a pay cheque for your work, thus it is far easier to deal with what transpires in the GT and NSWTG by justifying the workings of systems that fail far too many.

    We take offence to your suggestions of inheritances. Unlike the perpetrator of my father, we have worked on average a 60 hour week in the corporate world at very senior levels for decades, to ensure we own our own homes and support our family. My conclusion now resides with the hope there is an afterlife, whereby the truth of actions and intent is judged by a “real” law of justice. That hope in itself brings great peace.

    People’s lives and the family unit are more important than bureaucratic systems that are not working.

  12. Heartsore and disgusted Says:

    Dear Marcellous,

    Thank you for accepting my previous post.

    To clarify – The vultures I was referring to were not the Trustees. The reference was to external vultures that prey on the protected person as has happened in the case of “concerned” above and a multitude of others.

    No doubt, there is a generalisation in my comments and, of course exceptions, but the main thrust of my complaints, which are real issues of public interest, would resonate with most complainants.

    The Tribunal takes the “risk and trouble adverse path” and the Public Guardian and Public Trustee compound the problems for the very reasons I have mentioned in my previous post.

    Aged Care, DOCs, The Tribunal, Public Guardian & Trustee etc., rightly or wrongly rely on “under resourced” as an explanation for their shortcomings. Whilst that may add to the frustration from both sides it is not the main problem nor is it an acceptable excuse for lives cut short and family units destroyed by the very bodies that are charged to protect them.

    Complex or difficult cases require highly trained, competent, effective and specialised professionals who have a thorough understanding and experience of the needs of the elderly. the infirm, the vulnerable, the role of carers, family dynamics and so on.

    Without that level of competence, which is evidently lacking, the system will remain broken. Good intentions or otherwise, you have the wrong people in the wrong job who are out of their depth and that is why the Public Guardians fail to perform satisfactorily. Half the time, relatively simple cases become complex purely because of the conduct of the Tribunal and the Public Guardian. It is bureaucracy gone mad!

    The same applies to the Public Trustees most of whom do not understand finance, exchange rates, basic economics and good business practices all of which are important particularly when dealing with estates, importation of specialised medical items from overseas and so on.

    The Public Trustee takes a fee for its administration of estates and in turn, it is our expectation, that their practices are commercially sound just as we would expect from the private sector and commercial enterprises at large. Further, consideration is rarely given to the wishes of the protected person either currently or prior to coming under their control. The family unit has no value or currency with them at all despite all their claims to the contrary. These entities work to a cookie cutter formula of one size fits all.

    Each one of us who has made a complaint will say “walk a mile in my shoes” to fully comprehend the level of dysfunction that we have had or continue to face in our dealings with the Tribunal, Public Guardian and Public Trustee. Until then, one can only surmise the truth of the matter. The scars will remain long after our loved one has gone and is a pitiful legacy for any employee, past or present, of the NSW Guardianship Tribunal, Public Guardian and Public Trustee.

  13. P [redacted] Says:

    I find several of the former comments posted are heroic.
    They express my experiences and sentiments !

    I HAVE A WEBSITE TO HELP INFORM THE PUBLIC, TO BEWARE OF THE NSWTG & GT:

    http://freesandy.com.au/

    I hope I can help save my Mum from a slow, painful despairing death, courtesy of the NSWTG.

  14. Yes Minister Says:

    I’d dearly love to hear from Public Trustee victims in Queensland to form a lobby group here. To date we have sufficient to get the ball rolling but as with any enterprise like this, the more people the better.

  15. Joanne Says:

    We are having difficulties with the NSW Trustees. We are four daughters and two grandchildren. All in agreement with our requests.

    Firstly I had to search and find my mothers Superannuation from Sth Africa which took time and money as the representative from NSW Trustee did not make this discovery. The usual story, part time workers etc etc.

    Secondly, there is a property to be sold they pushed for their own recommended Estate Agent who’s quote came in a $50,000 less than the quotes we received ourselves. They made us write to them and made it difficult and time consuming. But finally got agreement. Time wasted as property in Sydney seemings to be taking a dive.

    Thirdly my sisters went in and made repairs out of own money to improve the property for sale. This also included staging the property for sale with furniture and art work.

    But in this matter they insist of having the property clear of any furniture even when all beneficiaries are in agreement that it would increase the sale of property. We sent numerous articles supporting this and if you ask any real estate agent they would agree.

    My question is why they would push for a lower quote on property and secondly want to remove any chance of increasing the property value for sale? Surely the real estate agents are the experts in this regard. And it they are in the business of selling properties within estates they should be aware. Why even is this even an issue for them? We as beneficiaries are responsible for clearing the house after sale, we have already cleared more than 80% of items.

    It seems like an agenda and that these issues need to be investigated. Their response to us: is it at the managers discretion, with no explanation of why he would come to this decision. Where is the duty of care to beneficiaries? They have not had to do any other work it has all been taken on by beneficiaries. This matter is now sitting with Senior Management so Im hoping they see the sense and take their duty of care to estate and not colleagues.

    Its frustrating, if we were dealing with private administrators I’m sure there responsibility would be easily managed in conjunction with beneficiaries and not undertake such decisions that would only devalue the estate. It doesn’t make sense to me at all!

    Is it possible to remove them as administrators?

    • marcellous Says:

      Not clear if the Trustee is administrator (because the deceased died intestate) or executor (appointed by will).

      If you are really all in agreement and of age (important qualification) it would be possible to remove the Trustee either an administrator or an executor but you might well incur more costs than it is worth and there would be a bunfight over the Trustee’s fees which would probably eat up any better price you could obtain. Even if the Trustee were removed it might still get its costs, unless you could prove misconduct by it. The problem here is (as the case which occasioned the original post showed) that the Trustee only ever gets slapped with a limp lettuce leaf. I sometimes wonder if this is not a hangover from the time when the Protective Commissioner (not the Trustee) was an arm of the Supreme Court.

  16. geronimo Says:

    Anyone really fair-dinkum about breaking the heads of Public Trustee or associated goons (kangaroo court / Adult Guardian / etc) should keep in contact with the Queensland mobs, especially the Committee to Expose the Public Trustee, as there are some very exciting things happening in the deep north and which will in the not too distant future make waves in all states and territories. We are currently looking at around ten thousand known victims of the triune beast (QCAT, Adult Guardian, Public Trustee) and related government departments. As soon as the flak dies down after the federal election, we;ll be seeking a Royal Commission into all state governments as well as their departments, quangos and statutory authorities. We’ve also been in contact with the United Nations Human Rights Council and intend presenting a humungous group submission from victims in all states and territories. The HRC has made a number of extremely critical reports regarding human rights abuse in Australia, consequently a BIG submission from victims will really rub salt in the wound. In addition to reinforcing the Royal Commission, we’ll also put the kybosh on Julie Bishop’s attempt to get Philip Ruddock a nice cushy retirement benefit in the form of a HRC berth on his retirement from federal politics.

  17. Kristy Says:

    To whom that still has a heart and actually do care,

    My name is Kristy Bowman, I’m 34 years of age. I have great concern for everyone as we all age, it’s inevitable. I have just come to learn that there are many people who simply just do not care cause they are driven by GREED.. $$$$$$$$ .. the “BUDGET”

    I have just lived and witnessed how pathetic and disgraceful the Australian health care and aged care system really is whilst being my fathers full time Carer over the past 18months.

    Along with the aided assistance of THE NSW TRUSTEE & GUARDIAN & PUBLIC GUARDIAN AND GUARDIANSHIP DIVISION OF NCAT. Who have MURDERED MY FATHER for their own best interests.. $$$$

    I was made my fathers guardian & financial manager in oct/ 2015 . It took almost 8 months to obtain these documents. As NCAT process is long , confusing and near impossible to get to speak to someone . No one has answers to your questions , no one helps , ” sorry that’s not my department . ” I’ll transfer you , yet if your lucky u will speak to another person with no interests or ideas nor ability to actually listen & help you or you usually just get disconnected ..

    As It took 18 phone calls and many emails to even get the correct new amendment Magistrate stamped and signed GUARDIANSHIP orders finally in December .. Yet I applied in May or June .
    At the bottom of the letter it states, please destroy the last orders or send them back to us for shredding ..

    Elderly abuse is a major concern, and it is not a police matter , so I have been told by many different police officers at multiple stations.

    As I attended 5 different police stations over the past 6 months to report neglect and abuse that my father was subjected too whilst being a victim at Gosford Hospital.

    I contacted the HCCC- re concerns of poor inhuman treatment in Gosford hospital.
    – removal of my fathers VOICE PROTHESIS- life saving medical device that he has had insitu for 27 years after surviving throat cancer .

    *** THE VOICE PROTHESES ****

    — enables speech
    — allows eat and drink normally & safely
    — PREVENTS ASPIRATION

    I contacted the ACCC – incompetence of nursing care staff employed by uniting care . After they refused to provide my father assistance with care of this VP…via a Registered Nurse, yet this my fathers DISABILITY – he has self managed it for 27 years , and kept him alive..

    is that not DISCRIMINATION … what about the DISABILITY ACT… ??

    – yet unable to change providers as no level 4 packages avail in the central coast. Although the “gateway” website says there is , yet ring every provider to be told no sorry , it’s not updated frequently.

    His level 4 aged care package provider UNITING was given funding of $145/day+ admin cost + our contribution payment of $9.85

    This is more money each day by the Australian government than what my father and I had to live off on a carers & disability pensions.
    Which is just $140/day combined incomes.
    Yet we also had to pay uniting care $9.85 EVERYDAY OF THE MONTH
    They only came mon-Friday
    45min.. Per day
    ONLY WOULD PROVIDED BY AN ASSISTANT NURSE-
    AIN max cost $25 / visit
    out of unitings budget of $145 + $9.85= $153.85 – $25 = PROFIT…
    WOW ! That is a lot of profit for a non for profit organisation, wouldn’t you say?

    Contacted Dementia help line too. – yet useless, yet the only reason I had to become my fathers Guardian was due to my father showing classical signs of Lewis body dementia , well if it’s this disease that deems a person to need a guardian why don’t they assist.

    Why is it this company UNITING CARE RECEIVE AROUND $5000 off the AUSTRALIA GOVERNMENT EACH MONTH FOR A LEVEL 4 aged care package , yet we were lucky to even get $1000 worth of care ,

    yet my father and I combined had to survive on less than that each month?

    There are 189hours in a week , UNITING were reluctant to even provide us even 20 hours of service for the $5000 /month they obtain. Therefore I had to provide my father the other 169h of care, supervision & support he required. With no family family support .
    Yet I only received $2000/month for careers pension.

    $2000-
    -$1400house
    -$ 150elect
    -$ 150 ph, mob, internet , fox
    -$ 200 petrol
    Carers pension gone
    UNITING care provided 45min of care each day Mon-Friday . Wow..

    I contacted the elderly abuse help line – many many times to get help or support – the tell me to contact police yet unsuccessful as police says it’s not a police issue
    – called 000
    – called the 134444 police info Line
    – rang Gosford police many times at hospital , they came up , and I got marched ,out like a criminal ..
    – chick cop and male officer- car park after 000 call – get on fb ? What ? It’s not a police matter put it on Facebook….

    I contacted carers nsw.. – contacted & went to carers cottage near gosford hospital
    Showed photo book . Of daily photographs I took as evidence .

    I contacted local member Swansea , minister of health , skinner , goward

    I contacted ombudsman –

    Anti-discrimination board –

    Disability rights

    United Nations

    Speech therapy Australia – not accredited under arpra

    Lifeline- yet I’m not crazy mental or a danger to myself or others – no help avail

    Men’s line on behalf of dad- cause after all dad can’t speak – so I was hoping they could maybe be Of assistance as an advocate, for my father maybe arrange an interpreter for my father to actually have his say. As after all it’s his life..doesn’t he have the right to communicate , and be heard ???

    You name it… contacted

    I have every email –

    I spent 2-8 hours on the phone every day trying to get my father help, not as if my father could ask for help, he couldn’t speak , they removed his voice PROTHESES remember. He had no means of communication. When I was able to see my dad of the last 3 months of his life , he was never clean, he was depressed , never smiled , he just cried.

    It was just horrible , I felt so helpless , contacted the complaints officer of hospital – yet nothing was done except the hospital restricted me from visiting my daddy. Fungus growing between his toes as they hadn’t

    Why was I put on visiting restrictions by the hospital 1/7/16 ? Preventing me from seeing my father . Why?
    They tried to black mail me as I was Notified Conveniently on a Friday afternoon 4:50pm – if I didn’t sign it, I couldn’t see my dad. I refused to sign it – as I was not the one who was causing my father harm .. they were…

    On the 20/7 I finally gained video footage of my father aspirating on the ward of m6 and sent it to the HCCC, to try and prove to them there so called investigations they conducted (correspondence the hospital supplied the HCCC ) with was not correct . As my fathers TEP was not at all closed , he was aspirating and drowning internally ..

    Then the hospital restricted my visits even more .. 27/7/16 what a coincidence??

    Oh that’s right cause I complained to the HCCC . As that’s what every so called help and information & support service I contacted told me too do..
    Letter dated 30/6 from HCCC informing me my fathers procedure closure of Tracy-esophagal puncture was successful with no complications. WHY WAS HE STILL ASPIRATING ??

    Yet public guardian informed me via email on the 30/6 telling me a 4mm hole remains, no more surgeries will be conducted and that my dads now on a end of life diet.

    What? The pubic guardian allowed this hospital to remove my dads voice PROTHESES (VP) as it had a slight leak over 2 day period as the VP simply needed changing. Reports state no leak on 9/5 yet they insisted on surgical closure on the 12/5/16 MY dads birthday actually, they wouldn’t let us go to lunch they insisted on him having surgery instead.

    I begged them all not too do the surgery . As a month prior my daddy almost died when they removed the VP 30/3/16 with out gaining my signed medical consent as dads guardian at the time.
    But I lost my guardianship as these doctors at Gosford hospital claimed I wasn’t acting in my dads best interests. As I took my father to John hunter hospital 6/4/16 for a 2nd opinion (cause apparently your entitled to a 2nd opinion. ) JHH saved my dads life they put my dads VP /valve back in.

    Yet dad was very weak and almost died after what gosford did Round 1. Yet public guardian let Gosford hospital go round 2 (removal of VP /valve)

    On the 20/7 I finally gained video footage of my father aspirating on the ward of m6 and sent it to the HCCC, to try and prove to them there so called investigations they conducted (correspondence the hospital supplied the HCCC ) with was not correct . As my fathers TEP was not at all closed , he was aspirating and drowning internally .. you don’t need to be a doctor to know that this footage your about to see is just wrong. I warn you it’s quite horrific. You tell me does his TEP look closed too you.

    This footage directed to Deepa who works at the HCCC .

    Nursing unit manager who threatens me with the police .

    Last time I saw my dad was 17th august. Was told by NUM my dads chest was clear.. how when he has been forced to aspirate for months..

    I refused to return back to the hospital after this day, in fear of them trying to frame me for their utter negligence. As after I made the complaint to the HCCC . The hospital tried to blackmail me via the INCLOSED lands act- wanting me to sign that rubbish..
    ” they accuse me of harming my father whilst he is in their care.. ” how dare they insult my intelligence.

    They were the ones harming my father- yet they [redacted] to hccc .. and I’m prevented visits unless I sign the INCLOSED lands act..

    I didn’t get too see my father in the last 2 weeks of his life as they wouldn’t remove the INCLOSED lands act like I asked.

    They sent email- from ROLA – extending the hours I could visit, and how generous they also said I could stay for an hour, instead of a mere half an hour like before.

    Do you have any idea what it is like to witness these so called health professionals slowly deprive my father of every ability he once had. Watching him being subject to neglect & abuse physically and mentally & psychologically- preventing me visiting.

    The disability laws & act- vounrable persons are entitled to a support person ? Where’s my fathers? Who else can lip read? No one..

    Social workers, patient advocate, liaison?? No one would help me or help my father…

    The hospital starts encouraging me to visit to say goodbye. I go to hospital at 1115am as INCLOSED lands act states and they have me arrested ..why? THEY IMPLEMENT A NEW ONE PREVENTING ME ANY VISIT..

    Cause my mother is FINALLY by my dads bedside, they couldn’t frame me why my mother was my witness… PLUS THEYCOULDN’T JUST KICK ME OUT OF THE HOSPITAL AS THEY DID EVERY TIME I ASKED QUESTIONS my dads dead within 12 hours.. convenient isn’t ..

    This nursing unit manager now has an AVO on me, and got me arrested on the 30/8/16 at 1115am.
    As I wanted to speak to the medical team . So I got hit with another INCLOSED lands act . I got detained and unlawfully arrested , I was realeased on bail at 4:50pm 31/8/16.
    My Dad died (was [redacted] by hospital ) 12:30am 1/9/16
    Yet trustee & probate states 31/8/16 .
    My sister [redacted]- appointed the NOK … [redacted] to sign death certificate.. that’s a step closer for her to obtain her inheritance..

    The AVO preventing me from getting answers from the medical team. As to why my father went into Gosford hospital not even a sick man , not once but twice , yet now dying (now dead) . ? Why ?
    As my father was subject to elderly abuse & neglect. Treated like a lab rat

    They insisted on removing my dad VP forcing him to be fed tubed for months til the minister of Heath deemed him malnourished. (Reportable reason of death)
    As they failed the 2 surgical closures, yet [redacted] to the HCCC , allow him to drown internally , as they refused to put in a 4mm valve to occlude the TEP. Tried to tell me my dads chest is clear. Even though u can see in that footage there is no way in hell that is possible .

    My dad went into a comatose state and then they wouldn’t give him a feeding tube when he really needed one and starved him to death for his last 14 days .

    I was my fathers Guardian until 20/4/16 & financial manager until the NCAT tribunal revoked the orders. After I reported the neglect and Abuse . They are suppose to protect people from Abuse neglect and exploration .. yet they allow him to be subject to it.

    The hospital then made my sister NOK, Gosford Hospital said he died of natural causes, yet my fathers death should of been a reportable one , as he had 2 surgical procedures in the past 3 months , yet his death was not reported and no autopsy was conducted.
    Yet in I’m on bail, AVO prevents me obtaining the answers to questions they refused to answer. So therefore it’s a police matter therefore also a reportable death under Australian law.
    Also was getting a home community package also grounds of also being a reportable death .

    So how does a hospital neglect my father, fail 2 surgical procedures , leave a 4’mm hole in his TEP- nullify his means of communication- breech of human rights – how is that in best interests of anyone? Not being able to Communicate.

    How is it the pubic guardian who job is to protect the rights of disabled persons, & ensure their human rights are protected , yet , they nullify a persons only means of communication ?

    But this is ok… ?? By the health minister I sent her the footage , local member , the police 6 different stations tell me this is not a police matter.. Yet they arrest me.. How so ?? Just like it’s not a reportable death. ? Let the laws state otherwise..

    How is one to grieve her loss with so many unanswered questions?
    So many laws broken , yet no one wants to be accountable , do u think you aren’t going to get old.. My father was merely 69 years of age..

    How do you compensate someone ? You can’t , nothing can bring my father back, no amount of $$ can make this right…

    But my dad taught me .. If u aren’t made accountable for your mistakes , you won’t learn from them , you will continue to make the same mistakes again..

    My dads death wasn’t a mistake .. Like ooopss you all allowed him to suffer for months.. No one helped me, no one cared .. Yet I’m not crazy , this is not just in my head… Refer me to mental health..
    – well how about you go seek help yourself . Cause if this was your self or your father. I’m sure as a loving caring daughter , Id hope you would do the same ..

    Elderly abuse is a massive issue as we all grow old. Who is going to help you?? When u can’t help yourself ? who’s going to be your voice when your human rights are breeched and your means of communication are nullified.. ??
    What makes you so special , that you think this won’t happen too you.. How are your children going to save you from being neglected and abused?

    Or are u going to just cry and point to your daughters car , yet she is forced to say no I’m sorry dad I can’t , I’m not allowed to take you home.. and cry her self ..

    I’m having nightmares of all of this.. I can’t get it out of my head.. Cause this is not a just a bad dream, this has been my life of the last 8 months. My poor daddy.. At least he is at peace now .. So much for our right to life… Starve to death til every health vital organ is forced to shuts down due to inadequate nutrition and hydration .. Do u wanna die like this..? I should think not..

    Kristy

    0416970430

    Please explain .. no legal firm or TV producers will assist me as the corruption Is deeper than Pandora’s box …

    Sent from my iPad

  18. Yes Minister Says:

    The corruption goes infinitely deeper than those who haven’t been touched by the scum could ever realize. It includes the three arms of government (legislature, executive and judiciary) as well as big business, all watchdogs and the media, which is why it is so difficult to get anyone to listen. I travel to other states periodically to meet with victims and carers. If perchance anyone reading this is as intent on destroying this racket as moi, get in touch to arrange a round table conference. 0488531824, 0466166105, 0407118893 or 0417200001

  19. Pea Says:

    That’s how they operate discraceful

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: