1. The respondent has not asserted any prejudice arising from the delay in bringing the application.

1. The applicant seeks review of the non-inclusion in her plan of funded supports in relation to assistive technology in the form of a smart phone and transportation funding. The respondent anticipates that the request for assistance with assistive technology is likely to be granted but identifies legal barriers to support in the form of funding of private transportation being included in the approved plan.
2. This is a concession that the applicant's application has merit at least insofar as it seeks inclusion of assistive technology in the relevant plan as a reasonable and necessary support that will be funded under the Scheme. Indeed, the respondent indicates that it is proposing to fund the support 'separate to the Tribunal process'.[8]
3. It is not made clear by the respondent where the NDIA obtains power to fund supports otherwise in accordance with the NDIS Act and I would take some persuading that such a power exists. However, even if the NDIA has such a capacity, it does not derogate from the concession which the respondent makes that assistive technology, for which the applicant seeks support and which the respondent accepts was paid for in the relevant plan period, is likely to meet the criteria for inclusion in the plan as a funded support. In such circumstances, the underlying application clearly has merit and this criterion weighs heavily in favour of the extension being granted.

1. The evidence indicates that the applicant has rested on her rights. There is no suggestion that she has taken steps to agitate for a different decision in respect of her 2017/2018 plan. However, as noted above, the reasons for that failure have been explained. This criterion weighs against the grant of an EOT but not strongly.

The length of delay and ignorance of review rights

1. The length of delay is very significant and weighs heavily against an extension. Eight hundred and sixty-nine days is a very significant delay and strongly favours refusal of an EOT. There is no reason to think that the applicant was not aware of her review rights so this criterion also weighs against the applicant.
2. When all these matters are considered, the delay by the applicant is very significant and, in most circumstances, I would not be inclined to grant such a long extension of time. However, in the present case, where the delay has been explained and, the respondent concedes that at least one of the supports she seeks is likely to be funded if the review is proceeded with, I consider that in all of the circumstances the extension of time should be granted.

1. The Tribunal grants the extension of time for making an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the CEO of the NDIA on 5 December 2017.

I certify that the preceding 24 (twenty four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member D O'Donovan.

........................................................................

[1] See Respondent's Outline of Submissions Re Application for Extension of Time filed on 14 July 2020, at [28].

[4] [2017] AATA 2870.

[8] Respondent's Outline of Submissions Re Application for Extension of Time filed on 14 July 2020, at [30].