JCK [2026] VCAT 172 (13 March 2026)

1. The Public Advocate, Office Of The Public Advocate Level 11, 222 Exhibition Street, MELBOURNE VIC 3000 is appointed guardian for JCK.
2. The guardian has power to make decisions about these personal matters:
   • - where JCK lives
   • - the support services that are provided to JCK, including services provided under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (e.g. who provides services, the timing and nature of services, funding arrangements for services)
3. Guardians must comply with the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019, which outlines their powers and duties.

1. State Trustees Limited, 1 McNab Avenue, FOOTSCRAY VIC 3011, is appointed administrator for JCK.
2. State Trustees Limited has power to make decisions about all financial matters.
3. The administrator has powers given under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 section:
   • - 46(1)
   • - 52
4. Administrators must comply with the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019, which outlines their powers and duties.
5. The administrator must complete and send a Financial Statement to VCAT for approval at the time the order is due for reassessment, or when VCAT requests it.

VCAT makes this order because it is satisfied that:

• - due to a disability, JCK does not have capacity to make decisions about the personal and financial matters listed in this order,
• - JCK needs a guardian and administrator, considering the factors set out in section 31 of the Act, including their will and preferences (what's important to them), and
• - this order will promote the personal and social wellbeing of JCK.

1. This order applies until VCAT makes another order.
2. Anyone can apply for VCAT to reassess this order at any time.
3. VCAT is due to reassess this administration order by 31 December 2026.
4. VCAT will automatically schedule a hearing and notify the parties and interested persons when the reassessment hearing can be scheduled. Unless VCAT makes a new order that cancels (revokes) this order, this order does not expire, even if a reassessment does not take place until after the above date.
5. VCAT is due to reassess this guardianship order by 31 December 2026.

VCAT will automatically schedule a hearing and notify the parties and interested persons when the reassessment hearing can be scheduled. Unless VCAT makes a new order that cancels (revokes) this order, this order does not expire, even if a reassessment does not take place until after the above date.

1. If the guardian, administrator or JCK change contact details (email, phone or address), the guardian or administrator must immediately inform VCAT in writing.

1. State Trustees Limited is entitled to payment (including GST) from the funds of JCK as follows:

A commission on gross income received, not exceeding:

• - 3.3 per cent of Centrelink or Department of Veterans' Affairs pensions, and
• - 6.6 per cent of all other income received

AND

A commission on assets of the estate.

If an asset is sold or brought in during the administration, for the value of the asset the commission must not exceed:

• - 3.3 per cent of any amount up to $500,000, and
• - 1.5 per cent of the amount (if any) between $500,000 and $1 million, and
• - 0.55 per cent of the amount (if any) between $1 million and $3 million, and
• - 0.44 per cent of the amount (if any) in excess of $3 million.

For any other asset, the commission must not exceed 2.2 per cent of the asset's value immediately before the end of the administration. This commission only applies if the administrator has not otherwise received reasonable payment for its work, and if VCAT approves it by order. No order is needed if the administration ends at the death of the represented person.

For all commissions on income and assets:

• - the value of an asset is its gross value, and
• - the method of calculating value and the definition of gross value are as set out in the scale of charges published in the Victoria Government Gazette

AND

A fee not exceeding 0.88 per cent per year on the capital sum invested in any State Trustees Limited common fund.

If State Trustees Limited provides any other estate-related services to the estate, it is entitled to payment. The payment rate must not exceed the amount in the scale of charges published in the Victoria Government Gazette.

JCK, in person, represented by Mr C. Nicholson, Mental Health Legal Centre

Department of Fairness, Families and Housing representatives, in person

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) is providing these reasons on a confidential basis. Clause 37(1) of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) provides that unless VCAT orders otherwise, a person must not publish or broadcast any report of a proceeding under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 (Vic) that identifies or could lead to the identification of a party to the proceeding.**

1. In these written reasons for decision, I refer to the person who is the subject of the application as JCK. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has given the person that anonymised name to protect their identity and the confidentiality of their personal information.
2. The applicant, a social worker at the Broadmeadows Older Persons Mental Health Unit, applied for a guardian and administrator to be appointed for JCK and raised the following issues:
   1. In September 2025, JCK had been admitted to an older person's mental health unit following a crisis in which his hoarding and self-neglect had escalated to a level of significant personal, financial and environmental risk.
   2. Reports indicated he was eating decomposing food and the public housing flat in which he lived was severely cluttered, squalid, infested by pests and structurally unsound.
   3. An application had been made to VCAT for eviction and the rent provider, Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH), was unwilling to provide any further cleaning, repairing or alternate accommodation.
   4. Assessments supported the need for an application for a guardian and administrator.
3. There was a hearing on 26 November 2025 where I was the presiding member. I made orders at the end of the hearing and gave oral reasons for my decision. The lawyer representing JCK at the hearing has subsequently asked for written reasons and I set out below a written version of the reasons I gave at the hearing.
4. I appointed the Public Advocate as guardian for JCK with power to make decisions for JCK about where he lives and what services he receives and I appointed State Trustees Limited to manage all of his finances. Both appointments were made for a period of one year.

1. At the hearing, I heard evidence from the following people:
   1. the applicant social worker;
   2. JCK;
   3. his brother;
   4. his lawyer;
   5. JCK's friend; and
   6. representatives from DHHS.

PRINCIPLES OF THE GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 2019 (VIC)

1. A person (including VCAT) exercising powers, functions and duties under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 (Vic) (the Act) must have regard to the principles set out in section 8 of the Act. In summary, they are:
   1. a person with a disability should be given practicable and appropriate support to make and participate in decisions, express their will and preferences and develop their decision-making capacity;
   2. the will and preferences of a person with a disability should direct decisions made for the person, as far as practicable; and
   3. powers, functions and duties must be used in the way in which is the least restrictive of the ability of the person with a disability to decide and act as is possible in the circumstances.
2. Section 9 of the Act sets out further principles which apply to a person making a decision 'for' a represented person. These apply to a guardian, administrator, supportive guardian or supportive administrator who is making a decision for a represented person. They would also apply to VCAT when it is advising an appointed decision-maker about their powers and duties. Section 9 principles do not bind VCAT when considering an application for the appointment of a guardian and administrator.

1. When deciding on an application seeking the appointment of a guardian and administrator, VCAT must apply the principles in section 8, including that JCK's will and preferences should direct the decision 'as far as practicable'.
2. JCK's will and preferences are relevant also when VCAT decides whether a person needs a guardian (section 31) and whether a proposed guardian is a suitable person to be appointed (section 32(3)(a)).
3. JCK attended the hearing and he was clearly able to tell me that:
   1. he did not need or want either a guardian or administrator;
   2. he did not want or need the type and level of care provided in an aged care facility or other supported accommodation;
   3. he was able and had plans to sort through and reduce the stored items in the flat and his rented storage units;
   4. he was not at risk if he returned to live in the flat.
4. Based on this evidence, I was satisfied that JCK wants not to have a guardian or administrator appointed and to be left alone to make his own accommodation arrangements and to remain in charge of his financial affairs.

1. Section 30(2)(a) of the Act says VCAT may only appoint a guardian or an administrator for a person if satisfied that because of the person's disability, the person does not have decision-making capacity in relation to:
   1. in the case of a guardianship order, the personal matters which are the subject of the application; and
   2. in the case of an administration order, the financial matters which are the subject of the application.
2. I received the following medical reports:
   1. Dr Michael Yap, Psychiatric Registrar, Medical Officer dated 17 October 2025;
   2. Dr Sanjana Desai, Clinical Neuropsychology Registrar dated 28 October 2025; and
   3. Dr Angelo Ferraro, Consultant Psychiatrist dated 10 October 2025.
3. Section 5(1) say that a person has capacity to make a decision in relation to a matter (decision-making capacity) if the person is able:

(a) to understand the information relevant to the decision and the effect of the decision; and

(b) to retain that information to the extent necessary to make the decision; and

(c) to use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision; and

(d) to communicate the decision and the person's views and needs as to the decision in some way, including by speech, gesture or other means.

1. Subsection (2) says that a person is presumed to have decision-making capacity unless there is evidence to the contrary.
2. Section 5(4) sets out matters that VCAT is required to have regard to when deciding whether a person has decision-making capacity:

(a) a person may have decision-making capacity in relation to some matters and not others;

(b) if a person does not have decision-making capacity in relation to a matter, it may be temporary;

(c) it should not be assumed that a person does not have decision-making capacity in relation to a matter on the basis of the person's appearance;

(d) it should not be assumed that a person does not have decision-making capacity in relation to a matter merely because the person makes a decision that, in the opinion of others, is unwise;

(e) a person has decision-making capacity in relation to a matter if it is possible for the person to make the decision with practicable and appropriate support.

1. The following extract, from the report of Dr Desai, sets out her findings, with which Doctors Yap and Ferraro agreed, as follows:

From a cognitive perspective, [JCK] has the ability to understand, retain, and communicate factual information about his circumstances. He understands the meaning of eviction, VCAT, Power of Attorney, and financial management, and can describe his income, bills, and storage costs in detail.

However, his ability to use and weigh this information when making decisions is significantly compromised by non-cognitive factors. These include rigid personality traits, a strong need for control, long-standing mistrust of others, and an over-valued attachment to his possessions. Together, these traits make it difficult for him to think flexibly, consider alternative perspectives, or appreciate the risks associated with his choices.

[JCK]'s cognitive functioning remains stable and does not indicate a neurological disorder or dementia. Nonetheless, his decision-making capacity is functionally compromised by longstanding psychological and personality factors that limit insight, flexibility, and judgement. Although he can understand and communicate information, he is unable to use and weigh that information effectively to reach reasoned decisions consistent with his best interests. Support, structure, and external oversight are likely required to assist him in managing these domains safely and sustainably.

1. Based on the medical reports, I am satisfied that JCK now lacks the capacity to make decisions about where he will live when he is discharged and decisions about the services he may need, including the services provided by the NDIS. I was also satisfied that JCK now lacks the capacity to manage his finances_._ I was satisfied that the lack of capacity stems from the disability - severe hoarding disorder and schizotypal personality disorder.
2. I note that JCK did not agree with the opinions of the assessing doctors and neuropsychologist, however, his opinion cannot change the doctor's expert opinion which was clear, and I accepted that professional evidence.

IS A SUPPORTIVE GUARDIANSHIP ORDER APPROPRIATE?

1. Appointing a supportive guardian would be less restrictive than appointing a guardian. A less restrictive order would be consistent with the principles in section 8 of the Act.
2. VCAT has power to appoint a supportive guardian whenever an application is made for appointment of a guardian, as provided by section 87 of the Act.
3. However, to appoint a supportive guardian for a person, the person must consent and must have decision-making capacity when practicable and appropriate support is provided, as set out in section 87(2) of the Act.
4. In the present case, this less restrictive alternative was not available because Dr Yap reported as follows:

[JCK] does have a disability (severe Hoarding Disorder and Schizotypal Personality Disorder) which severely impairs his decision-making capacity and overall quality of life.

He will not consent to VCAT making such an order given his lack of insight into his current issues and rigid beliefs of wanting to maintain his own independence despite poor lifestyle choices that pose a serious risk to his physical health and overall well-being.

1. Accordingly, that less restrictive alternative was not available in this case.

1. Section 30(2)(b) of the Act says VCAT may only appoint a guardian for a person if satisfied that the person needs a guardian.
2. Section 31 of the Act sets out a number of matters VCAT must consider in determining whether a person needs a guardian or administrator. VCAT must consider the person's will and preferences (as far as they can be ascertained) and whether decisions about the relevant personal matters could be more suitably made informally or could reasonably be made by mediation, negotiation or some similar method. VCAT must also consider the wishes of any primary carer, relative or other person with a direct interest in the application and must also consider the desirability of preserving existing relationships important to the person with a disability.
3. In this case, JCK needs a guardian and administrator because he does not have an attorney appointed for personal and/or financial matters. Further, the treating Psychiatric Registrar (Dr M. Yap), Psychiatric Consultant (Dr A. Ferraro) and the Neuropsychological Registrar (Dr S. Desai) all report that JCK's insight, executive function and ability to use or weigh information relevant to the decisions he faces are affected by his disability. The doctors report that the effect is such that JCK is unable to make decisions about both his personal and financial circumstances.
4. I have considered JCK's will and preferences - that is that he does not want a guardian or administrator. I was unable to give effect to all those wishes because JCK's view of his own capabilities was very different from the medical evidence that he is at significant risk of homelessness unless his current circumstances can be managed.
5. The DFFH representatives gave evidence that the flat had been fumigated to address a pest infestation; had previously been deep cleaned; was packed to the ceiling with grates full of collected items, none of which appeared to have any value; and was leaking a sludge into the downstairs flat. JCK's flat had been deemed to be a fire hazard, and an order had been made at VCAT requiring compliance with tenancy conditions to prevent eviction. DFFH had determined to proceed to seek eviction and, at the hearing before me, DFFH representatives told me DFFH would not entertain any new or existing accommodation for JCK.
6. The applicant gave evidence that JCK was renting storage units in which he stored those collected items that could not fit into the flat. He paid a monthly fee of $1,045 for three storage containers (two '40 foot' containers and a third '20 foot' container). I was told that the cost of storage since 2007 had been, in total, $150,000. This figure was not disputed by JCK or his lawyer.
7. The applicant reported that JCK was consistent in saying that he would prioritise the cost of storage containers over the cost of accommodation, even if it meant he would be homeless. His plan was to purchase the containers, find a block of land to place them on and live in one of the containers. That did not seem a viable solution to me. It seemed to me to illustrate the inability to use and weigh the options as reported by doctors whose reports I had considered.
8. The applicant had taken JCK to visit what was considered to be a suitable residential aged care facility. JCK agreed it was OK, but JCK would not prioritise the cost of accommodation over the rental cost of the storage containers.
9. I have also considered possible informal means of making decisions about personal or financial matters and in this case, less formal decision-making is not practicable. That is because of the legal nature of decisions required, JCK's rigid determination to maintain his stored items at the expense of a safe place to live and the high risk of serious harm in the likely event that the 71-year-old would become homeless.
10. One of JCK's two brothers attended the hearing to offer him support. The brother offered financial support to JCK but neither supported or opposed the appointment of a guardian and administrator.
11. Appointing a guardian will not interfere with the relationships that are important to JCK because those persons who support him - one brother and a friend - will likely continue their infrequent contact with him.
12. Taking all this into account, and noting JCK's opposition to the appointments, I was satisfied that JCK needs a guardian and an administrator.

1. Section 30(2)(c) says VCAT may only appoint a guardian and administrator for a person if satisfied that the guardianship or administration order will promote the person's personal and social wellbeing.
2. Section 4 of the Act states that the personal and social well-being of a person is promoted by:

(a) recognising the inherent dignity of the person; and

(b) respecting the person's individuality; and

(c) having regard to the person's existing supportive relationships, religions, values and cultural and linguistic environment; and

(d) respecting the confidentiality of confidential information relating to the person; and

(e) recognising the importance to the person of any companion animal the person has.

1. I am satisfied in this case that the order will promote JCK's personal and social wellbeing because a guardian and administrator will be able to ensure he has safe and suitable accommodation which he is able to afford. Storing items collected from the streets is important to JCK but if he dies or becomes seriously ill through neglect then he won't get any enjoyment from his stored items.

1. In this case, no relatives or friends of JCK were available to be appointed as guardian or administrator.
2. I was satisfied (as required by section 33 of the Act) that no person other than the Public Advocate fulfils the requirements of section 32 for appointment as guardian for JCK.
3. I was satisfied that the most affordable administrator in the circumstances was State Trustees Limited and I appointed them to manage all of JCK's finances.
4. The appointed guardian and administrator will work with JCK so that his will and preferences will only be overridden if necessary to prevent serious harm to him.

POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE GUARDIAN AND ADMINISTRATOR

1. The order says that the guardian can make decisions about where JCK will live and what services he will need. The addition of services authority will potentially give the guardian a broader range of accommodation options.
2. The administrator can make decisions about the payments being made on storage containers and the payment of the cost of the accommodation.
3. The Act gives guidance for a guardian and administrator about how to exercise their decision-making powers. The principles in section 8 and section 9 of the Act apply to those decisions.
4. Section 9 of the Act sets out the principles applying when a decision is made for a represented person. It says the guardian and administrator 'should give all practicable and appropriate effect to the represented person's will and preferences'. It also says that JCK's will and preferences 'should only be overridden if it is necessary to do so to prevent serious harm' to him.
5. Sections 41 and 55 set out further requirements of the guardian and administrator. Some of the requirements most relevant in this case are that the guardian and administrator must act as an advocate for the represented person, must encourage and assist him to develop decision-making capacity about personal affairs and must act in such a way as to protect him from neglect, abuse or exploitation.

1. I have made this order for what I consider to be the shortest possible time before the orders are reassessed. This order will be reassessed after one year. JCK or anyone else can apply for the reassessment to be sooner if that is necessary.

1. I recognise that the orders I have made restrict some of JCK's rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (the Charter) and that the Charter applies to VCAT when making orders under the Act.
2. It is my view that the limitation of JCK's human rights as affected by my order to be the least restrictive possible to achieve the purpose that the limitation seeks to achieve.