She helped a vulnerable man manage his money – then came a $2400 bill that shocked her

Sunday, 19 October 2025

The Government has quietly dropped a subsidy for costs associated with managing the affairs of vulnerable people, leaving some families with large bills. Tony Wall reports.

Irene Rivers of Te Puke was shocked when she received an invoice out of the blue from Public Trust for $2447.

Rivers is a court-appointed property manager for a vulnerable man who suffered a life-changing brain injury more than a decade ago and requires full-time care.

Every year Rivers must, by law, submit financial statements to the Family Court outlining how she’s used the man’s assets and income.

Public Trust - a Crown entity which is New Zealand’s largest provider of estate administration services - is legally mandated to audit the statements, to ensure the protected person is not being financially abused.

For many years, Rivers submitted the statements to the court, with no problems.

But in June this year, she received an unexpected invoice from Public Trust for $2447, which appeared to be for two years’ worth of auditing, although Rivers says the invoice wasn’t itemised.

Unbeknown to her, a change to the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act fee structure had occurred on October 3 last year.

Before then, the Government, through the Justice Ministry, had fully subsidised the cost of Public Trust’s examination fee for protected people with assets less than $20,000.

But after October 3 it removed the subsidy, justifying this by also raising the income and asset thresholds for the point at which a property manager must be appointed.

This means that more people qualify as property administrators, rather than managers, and don’t have to file annual statements.

Meanwhile, the Government also increased the regulated fees for the audits from $132 an hour to $247 an hour - the first increase in 36 years.

(People with assets of more than $20,000 who were previously paying $132 an hour for the audits will now have to pay $247.)

The Ministry says the changes are likely to affect 2561 property managers nationwide.

“Until we got this big fee we didn’t know there was any charge, we didn’t know anything about it,” Rivers says. “It’s terrible.”

Because the value of the man’s assets is above the new threshold, she doesn’t qualify as a property administrator and he faces having to pay around $1223 every year.

Rivers says the man survives on “meagre” weekly ACC payments, which have to cover all his living expenses, and there is no money left over for the new fees.

She says the Government doesn’t realise the hardship the change will cause some families.

In a letter to Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith asking for the Government to consider re-introducing the subsidy, she described it as a “brutal law change”.

Contact the reporter: tony.wall@stuff.co.nz

“It appears rather ironic that Public Trust is mandated by the Family Court to audit our statements, to ensure we haven’t ripped [the man] off,” she wrote.

“But in the process of this, we feel that he is now being ripped off by the system.”

Goldsmith’s office replied saying it was referring the matter to Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee.

McKee said in a statement to Stuff the Government was “not currently considering” re-introducing the subsidy.

She said any changes to property manager orders would be considered when the Law Commission came back later this year with recommendations from a review of laws around adult decision-making capacity.

Georgie Hills, a spokeswoman for Public Trust, acknowledges the changes have been difficult for people.

Public Trust has received over 170 complaints in the past year, she says, mostly about the fee increase.

Stuff understands the organisation has brought in debt collection agencies in some cases where people haven’t paid their invoice.

Rivers says she provides the financial statements on Xero accounting software, and questions why Public Trust needs to spend much time auditing them.

Hills says the organisation is working to reduce the time it takes to do the examinations, and providing property managers with step-by-step guides to make it easier for them.

“We want to make sure that, wherever possible, we’re helping people manage these costs in a practical and reasonable way.”

Public Trust has no discretion in taking on the work, or the rates it charges, Hills says, and is unable to waive its fees.

Donella Gawith, group manager of service improvement for the Ministry of Justice, says on average, the Public Trust spends 2.25 hours on each case a year, with total hours varying according to its complexity.

Prior to the fee increases, the ministry was only able to undertake “limited” consultation on the changes, she says, due to “time and Budget sensitivity”.

Court staff notified property managers of the legislative change where possible, providing information sheets.

The man Rivers is property manager for had an accident in the 2000s, and was in coma and suffered an hypoxic brain injury.

Now in his 30s, he has no short-term memory and requires around the clock care.

Rivers believes ACC should pay the Public Trust fee, as the man wouldn’t be incurring the fee if it wasn’t for his accident.

She wrote to ACC Minister Scott Simpson, asking if legislation could be amended to include the fees in care packages.

Simpson wrote back saying he had no plans to make any changes “at this time”.

Rivers also asked the Ministry of Justice to pay half of the Public Trust bill, because a months-long delay by the Family Court in sending the 2023 financial statements to the Public Trust meant they incurred the new fee.

The Tauranga Family Court apologised and admitted the delay caused the fee to be charged, but said it “does not have the authority to waive or reduce the fee”.

Gawith says the ministry “acknowledges the frustration felt by the family” but is “unable to provide reimbursement in these circumstances”.

To Rivers, it’s all symptomatic of an unfair and flawed system.

She says people are unlikely to volunteer to become property managers with the new fees in place.

“I’m advocating for someone who is very vulnerable - why should he be lumped with extra costs?”