You received a decision that does not fit your life. It is frustrating, and you are not alone. There is a way to challenge it. Taking it step by step can make a complicated process feel more manageable.
Step 1: Name exactly what was decided
Getting specific helps you choose the right next move. Examples include:
-
You were denied Access to the NDIS.
-
Your plan reassessment result cut supports or you asked for a significant increase and only received a small one.
-
A plan variation was refused, for example a funding management change from Agency-managed to plan-managed was declined.
-
Assistive Technology was knocked back or reduced, such as a wheelchair repair or replacement.
-
Home and living decisions changed or refused, like SIL, ILO or SDA.
-
Specific supports were removed or reduced, such as therapy hours, behaviour support, or support coordination.
Step 2: Before you request a review, find out the “why”
Clarity first. You don’t need to accept a vague letter.
-
Ask for detailed reasons. If the letter is light on detail, you can ask your planner or LAC to share the internal notes or advice used to make the decision (planner, technical team, home and living team, or others).
-
Request a Participant Information Access (PIA). This is your right to the material the NDIA holds about your case. It often includes internal notes, call logs and advice. PIA responses can take time, so put the request in quickly.
-
List the reasons you see. Write them out as dot points in plain English. You will answer each one with evidence.
Step 3: Gather targeted evidence that answers those reasons
Sometimes a decision is wrong because someone overlooked information. More often, the evidence was not strong enough or it didn’t match what the NDIA expects. Goalposts do shift, which is tough. You can still build a clear, focused pack.
What to cover:
-
Your baseline functional impairment that is related to your disability. Describe your typical level of function, including how things are on your harder days.
-
Risks if the support is not funded. For example, unsafe transfers, falls, missed medication, carer burnout, tenancy risk, school or job loss.
-
Disability linkage. Make it clear impacts are from your disability, not from another health condition that the NDIS does not fund.
-
Effectiveness and value. Show briefly that the support works and is the sensible option to meet the need now.
-
Fit to current rules. Some items that used to be approved are now on the “not an NDIS support” list. If what you asked for sits outside, you may need to adjust the request or consider a replacement option.
Tips for report writers:
-
Use plain language tied to daily life and safety.
-
Describe your typical baseline, including the most challenging parts of the week.
-
Give frequency, duration and why the support is required.
-
Avoid phrases like “doing well” without context.
Step 4: Choose the timing, then request the review
Most decisions can be challenged by asking for a Review of a Reviewable Decision (internal review, sometimes called a “RORD” under section 100 of the NDIS Act). You generally have three monthsfrom the day after you receive the written decision to lodge.
-
Work backwards from the deadline. Ask clinicians how long they need to update or create reports.
-
Lodge when your key evidence is ready and you are still inside the three-month window.
-
Be specific in your request. State the parts you disagree with and the outcome you seek.
Simple cover note structure:
-
The decision you are challenging
-
The Agency’s stated reasons (dot points)
-
Your evidence that answers each reason
-
The outcome you are asking for
Funding periods have changed the tactics
In the past, some participants ran services at the level they originally requested while they fought the decision, expecting they could sort it out later. With funding periods now splitting budgets into monthly or quarterly amounts, that approach is risky. If the internal review upholds the original decision and you have spent beyond what was released in a period, you can end up short later in the plan.
A safer approach now: try to operate within the decision as best you can, and document the actual impacts with short letters or notes from health or allied health professionals while the review is underway. If safety is at risk, you can ask whether a plan variation could bridge the gap while the internal review is decided.
Be realistic, and gentle with yourself
Sometimes a request no longer meets reasonable and necessary under the current rules. That does not mean your need is not real. It often means the rules are tighter and the outcome may leave a gap that affects everyday life. Where possible, look for alternatives that meet the same goal within the rules, and be honest about the limits. It is okay to feel disappointed and tired of pushing.
What usually happens with internal reviews
Right now, many internal reviews confirm the original decision. If that happens, the next step is an external review at the Tribunal. We will cover Tribunal options in a separate post so this guide stays focused on getting your internal review right.
Real-world examples
-
Assistive Technology replacement refused
You are told there is “no evidence of risk.” An OT addendum explains the current chair is unstable, lists two near-falls, and sets out transfer risks and pressure-injury risk. The internal review approves an urgent replacement. -
Support coordination removed
You are told “informal supports can take over.” A psychologist outlines executive functioning limits, the number of services to be coordinated, and the carer’s work hours. Limited support coordination hours are restored. -
Home modifications reduced
The planner says “standard equipment should suffice.” An OT compares task demands in your home layout against standard equipment and shows why a level-access shower is required for safe transfers. The decision is revised.
Quick checklist
-
Identify exactly what was decided, in your words
-
Ask your planner or LAC for the detailed reasons used
-
Lodge a Participant Information Access (PIA) request for the full file
-
Map each Agency reason to targeted evidence that answers it
-
Ask report writers for clear, practical descriptions of your baseline and risks
-
Plan your timing so you lodge the internal review within three months, with evidence attached
-
Operate within funding periods to avoid late-plan shortfalls
-
If safety is at risk, ask whether a plan variation can bridge the gap while the review runs
-
If the internal review confirms the decision, the Tribunal is the next step
If you want a sense-check on your draft evidence or you cannot get clear reasons from the Agency, you are welcome to ask for another pair of eyes. We can look at what you have and suggest practical ways to strengthen it.