Esteban

Esteban, in his late 20s, is autistic and has severe anxiety disorder. He lives with his mother and receives NDIS funding for support workers.

Esteban is concerned that service providers are not held accountable.

He told the Royal Commission about an occasion when he and his support worker found themselves in a difficult situation, but the support worker seemed only concerned for himself.

‘He wasn't offering any support, and I was becoming increasingly stressed … So I told him he had to leave because it was stressing me out.’

Esteban spent the remainder of the day alone and outside until his mother, who had been out of town, was able to assist.

Following that episode, Esteban asked the service provider for access to his file. He wanted to know how it had been reported. His mother contacted the provider first of all, but the supervisor she spoke to refused to give her any information – ‘even though I'd listed her as someone authorised to operate on my behalf’.

‘They were very aggressive with that. And so when they refused to talk to Mum, Mum eventually had to put me on. And then they refused to accept the request from me unless I gave it in writing, which I have difficulty responding to emails and composing them in a prompt timeframe.’

Esteban ‘tried very hard’ to get his request dealt with over the phone.

‘But the supervisor told me that she didn't think I was as disabled as Mum said I was and I said I was … Even though I can't handle emails properly, she insisted that I could.’

Esteban eventually filed a formal request for documents, and the service provider handed over copies of some correspondence between them. It was clear there must be much more in his file, so Esteban then put in a request to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to see all his records.

Through this process Esteban was given an extensive file of information, but much of it related to someone else.

‘It said stuff like [Esteban] is an alcoholic, has a gambling addiction, has been sexually threatening towards staff.’

The episode that prompted his inquiry in the first place was barely mentioned.

‘There was no incident report for that at all. The file simply stated that, "[Esteban] agreed to conclude the session early," … when I was so stressed I couldn't keep dealing with the guy.’

Esteban complained to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission again. It told him that the service provider had apologised so there was no further action it could take.

‘And at that point we had not received an apology, so we raised that issue. We received a call from someone at [the service provider] who offered an apology, but I asked them if they knew what the apology was for, and they said they did not know. I don't know how you can apologise for something you're not aware of. But it's not apologising for what we experienced. We raised that with the Quality and Safeguards Commission, but they told us an apology had been issued. We asked for an apology in writing, they did not deliver, and the Quality and Safeguards Commission closed our file.’

Esteban has since changed service providers, but still has concerns. The new provider charged him for multiple hours of labour it said were needed to produce his plan, but the plan was computer generated and full of errors. When he insisted the provider correct the errors, they charged him again.

Esteban reported this experience to a fraud hotline and said it was promptly dealt with.

He believes there is an issue of procedural fairness that needs to be addressed.

‘Every time there was something going on, the [service providers] have the last say on everything.’