Accomplished Choice Solutions Pty Ltd

I’m only touching the tip of the iceberg, but my experience with this NDIS provider was extremely concerning and unprofessional. The owner regularly behaved in ways that were inappropriate in a professional setting, including smoking inside the office and speaking to both clients and staff in an aggressive manner. The coordinator in charge of client matters did not appear to hold relevant qualifications for the role, which showed in the poor decision-making and lack of understanding of support needs. In the SIL homes, clients’ daily lives were controlled in ways that did not align with NDIS values. Food was rationed, toilet paper was limited, and clients were told when they had to be in bed with lights off. Clients were also required to pay for things such as yard maintenance, which should not have been their responsibility. There were serious welfare concerns as well. A dog belonging to the owner was left at the SIL house, and clients who did not like or want to care for an animal were expected to look after it. Staff and clients were also constantly monitored by cameras placed in common areas, which felt excessive and intrusive. Staff safety was repeatedly overlooked. Workers supporting high-risk clients (including clients who self-harm) were instructed to leave them alone to pick up furniture or run errands unrelated to client care. Staff were made to pay out-of-pocket for issues such as locksmith costs when accidentally locked out of the staff room, and were required to deep-clean the SIL home before the rental was handed back — duties well outside the role of a support worker. Staffing levels were also unsafe. There were occasions where only one staff member was placed on a sleepover shift responsible for clients across two separate SIL houses, totalling six people 2 of which were extreme self harmers, which is not adequate support. I also want to point out that many of the existing positive reviews appear to be from people connected to the owner rather than genuine clients. For example, Julian is listed as a “client,” but he is actually the partner of the owner’s son, which raises doubts about the reliability of those reviews. Overall, this service operated in ways that did not align with NDIS standards, client safety, or respect for staff. I genuinely hope improvements are made, because participants relying on support deserve far better