Revealed: How these NDIS providers were banned in 2024

These two Aussies are among more than 120 people who have been banned from the NDIS. See why.

EXCLUSIVE

A couple who were previously banned from running a daycare group, and a carer jailed for fraud are among more than 120 people who have received permanent or temporary bans from working in the NDIS sector in 2024.

The NDIS watchdog publishes the names of people it has banned on a public list.

A ban can be imposed for a range of reasons, ranging from compliance issues to more serious criminal allegations, although the details published for why each individual has been banned are vague.

An investigation into Asunta Weil and Michael Bol reveals they were running a family day care business prior to offering services to those on the NDIS.

Despite having their approval to run their child care business cancelled in 2016 for contraventions of the family assistance law, it didn’t stop them moving into the NDIS sector.

Raheel Chaudhry was trading as RMC Plan Managers, before he was banned from working in the NDIS.

Ms Weil, whose LinkedIn states she was a student at the Christ College in Sudan, and Mr Bol, appeared on the Child Care Enforcement Action Register in 2016, where they had their approval to run Kids Homelike Family Day Care in Melbourne, withdrawn.

Among the reasons listed under their suspension published on the Department of Education’s website was that the service had not complied with several conditions for continued approval under the family assistance law Administration Act, including sections relating to “false statement or document” and “payment of fee reductions obtained by fraud”.

By 2021 the Melbourne couple had moved into the disability sector using a similar name to their previous business, Homelike Disability Services.

Ms Weil and Mr Bol were given a permanent banning order from working in the NDIS, which was published on the NDIS Commission’s website in May. They have not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing.

Another recipient of a banning order was John Belieu, a former Queenslander, who moved to Melbourne. He was permanently banned in June from “providing disability supports and services, directly or indirectly, to NDIS-funded participants”, according to his banning order. He has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing.

He describes himself as a mental health social worker and psychotherapist on LinkedIn.

Gladstone woman Joanne Louise Mobbs, 53, was banned after being jailed for fraudulently obtaining $75,563 from her former client's NDIS fund.

In Queensland, former carer Joanne Louise Mobbs, 53, was permanently banned in July after she was jailed at Rockhampton District Court for fraudulently obtaining $75,563 of NDIS funding belonging to a woman in her mid-20s who had cerebral palsy and severe intellectual impairment.

Mobbs pleaded guilty to one count of fraud and was sentenced to three and a half years in prison with a non-parole period of 10 months.

The court heard there were three co-defendants who were sentenced the year before including Brendan Alexander Hudson-Miller who obtained $40,365 from the same victim’s NDIS funds. He was sentenced in 2023 in Mackay to two years and three months prison with parole release after serving six months. On his LinkedIn account he wrote, “I’m a hard worker and willing to try anything once.”

He was permanently banned from the NDIS last year.

Raheel Chaudhry, from Sydney’s Inner West, received a temporary banning order in September from trading as RMC Plan Managers for five years. He has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing.

According to his LinkedIn account, he was a plan manager at RMC Plan Managers for eight years.

NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission Associate Commissioner Natalie Wade.

NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission Associate Commissioner Natalie Wade said as well as bans for the most serious cases of non-compliance, the watchdog can also issue banning orders for specific periods of time, or conditional banning orders that prevent a provider or worker from delivering certain supports or services.

“When considering compliance action, we look at the seriousness of the breach, as well as the attitude, knowledge and actions taken by the provider or worker,” Ms Wade said.