The State recommended an external wall remediation only in a home where an internal wall was already cracking and carrying specialist hoist equipment used every day to lift and move a paralysed woman. The family were then refused access to see the full technical report so as to understand whether it was a safe decision to only give an outer leaf remediation. My constituent's home was adapted in 2017. She was paralysed after a car accident and it is designed entirely around her needs. Where the hoist is system is used, inside the walls are cracking, not just the outside. Internal cracking has already been identified in parts of the structure holding the equipment that supports her getting out of the bed, to the bathroom and to the wheelchair. How can this be described as a safe decision when the family are being asked to accept the decision without actually seeing the technical evidence?

Sentiment score: 0.13