Retirement village exit entitlements and recurring charges cap

Submission cover sheet

  • Name of organisation or individual making this submission

    Confidentiality requested

Questions on possible options

  1. Is the description of the ‘Sydney Metropolitan Area’ appropriate? If not, why not, and what areas should be included or excluded?

    Central Coast, Wollongong and Newcastle total just under 50% of Sydney and should be treated differently to the rest of rural NSW. Same as Sydney metropolitan. Large populations in these areas and many aging who chosethese locations as they are less expensive.

  2. Are the proposals for appointing a valuer, to determine the value of the property, necessary and appropriate?

    The present system appears inequitable. The problem in my fathers case is not the valuation from the owners of the village but the ways in which they calculate my fathers exit entitlement.

  3. 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?

    There needs to be an independent arbiter who can assess the exit entitlement given that at present this favours the lessor.

  4. 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?

    Consideration of the means undertaken to resell the property. The time taken by the lessor to undertake refurbishment and the reasons for this need to be provided in writing to the lease holder or his agent or guardian prior to the operator undertaking refurbishment and sale process.

  5. Are there any additional circumstances the Tribunal should be able to take into account when considering a hardship application from an operator?

    The regulations you outline still seem to favour the operator to the detriment of the lessee. The hardship likely to be experienced by the operator is in no way comparable to the hardship experienced by the lessee in waiting for the unit to be refurbished and then put on the market while simultaneously having to pay interest on the daily payment deficit from the RAD at an aged care facility.

  6. Are there any other factors that could affect the setting of a ‘trigger point’?

    Not able to comment.

  7. 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?

    It seems that present arrangements favour the operator to the detriment of the resident. The Victorian and SA regulations seem more considerate to the resident having to sell and needing to find a large amount for a RAD.

  8. Can you think of any other benefits or costs of this proposal? What are they?

    More sensitive to the needs of elderly residents forced by frailty and dementia to move into care and having a large amount of money locked up at the good graces of the operator in terms of disposing of an older villa over newer villas currently under construction.

  9. 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?

    Yes. On the day the vacate inspection is carried out.

  10. Should one or both of the proposals be ‘grandfathered’? If not, please provide your reasons.

    No. It is apparent from the growth of this industry that it is seen as very profitable. I strongly urge the regulators to build into the reforms a table which each operator is obliged to provide to prospective residents setting out the likely exit payments at 3 year intervals. This could be stated as non binding and advisory however it would provide prospective purchases with a clearer idea of how much they will lose and possibly help them to see beyond the gloss of extravagant extras such as games room, pool, library , ballroom to the real loss involved in making the choice of retirement villa living as a lessee not an owner.

  11. Please provide any further comments on the reforms.

    My father paid $3XX,000 in 2001 for his villa. The operator values it currently $6XX,000. The estimated payment after 18 years and a monthly fee for service ( of very limited use as he aged) of approximately $500 per month in total over $100,000 is $288,000 approximately after numerous deductions. So after 18 years the operator is set to recoup $3XX,000 while my father receives $288,000. In addition I am not given the option of using my selling agent but one used by the operator. I feel the reforms must be structured to better take into account the period of time the resident has occupied the villa.

At our discretion we may remove parts of submissions because of length, content, appropriateness or confidentiality (privacy) reasons.