Submission cover sheet
- Name of organisation or individual making this submission
- Authorised delegate/contact person
Questions on possible options
- Is the description of the ‘Sydney Metropolitan Area’ appropriate? If not, why not, and what areas should be included or excluded?
The requirements should apply to the whole state. No difference between Sydney and rest of state.
- Are the proposals for appointing a valuer, to determine the value of the property, necessary and appropriate?
- Where residents wish to sell their residence on their own terms, under what circumstances should they be able to opt in or opt out of the exit entitlement provision?
At their own volition
- What issues should the Tribunal take into account when considering whether or not the operator has done everything in their power to enable the sale of a premises?
Fair agreed sale price
- Are there any additional circumstances the Tribunal should be able to take into account when considering a hardship application from an operator?
- Are there any other factors that could affect the setting of a ‘trigger point’?
- Would any of the current provisions in Victoria and South Australia as set out in Appendix A (in the discussion paper), be of benefit to NSW residents of retirement villages?
- Can you think of any other benefits or costs of this proposal? What are they?
Payment should be based on the entry cost. If sale delayed, the difference should be paid on completion of sale.
- As with residents with a non-registered interest, should the ‘trigger’ to commence the 42-day period begin when the resident permanently vacates the premises?
- Should one or both of the proposals be ‘grandfathered’? If not, please provide your reasons.
- Please provide any further comments on the reforms.
The whole of the state should be classed as one entity.