The commission has written to all SDA Providers. The awesome people over at Team DSC have the details of the letter
What Sort of Practices Raise Questions?
The practices below are the sort of things that are very likely to be unlawful, they are unethical and should be stopped:
Exclusive SIL Arrangements
An SDA Property is someone’s home. They get to choose their supports. Having an exclusive SIL agreement breaks many rules
Having a SIL in Place Before There are Participants in The House
As per above, how can it be choice and control if there is already a SIL in please. It makes the SDA provider’s job easier in that they don’t have to find participants, but there are no benefits for the participants.
Financial Incentives from the SIL Provider
Where the SIL provider is providing a financial incentive to the SDA Provider to provide supports in the property
The SDA Provider and the SIL are the Same or Related Organisation
A participant should be able to freely choose their supports.
The SDA Provider Pays Too Much to the Investor
We have seen situations where the SDA Provider is paying an amount equivalent to 100% of the SDA payments/RRC while being responsible for maintenance, repairs, rates, insurance and management. Without even accounting for the vacancy risk they are losing at least 20% on that. This means there must be a financial relationship or benefit to be derived from the supports in the house, otherwise they would go broke.
Valuers would question the commerciality of any fixed lease above 65% of the potential income of the property.
SDA Provider Charging Fees to or for Support Workers
Where the SDA provider is charging a fee to the support workers to be able to provide support in the property or they are charging a fee to the participant to be able to have their support worker get access to the property.