Retirement village exit entitlements and recurring charges cap

Submission cover sheet

  • Name of organisation or individual making this submission

    Barry OConnell

  • Authorised delegate/contact person

    Barry OConnell

  • Position

  • Organisation

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?

    All areas should have the same regulations. Most retirement villages are simply recycling there capital outlay as they retain a large proportion of sale proceeds. They also take a substantial amount of any capital gain but the tenant bears all capital loss. Each retirement village needs to place a proportion of sales into a Trust vehicle to cover payments to tenants leaving the village.

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

    Definitely. Further the tenant or representative should be able to use their own estate agent to sell the property

  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?

    When a unit is vacated all ongoing costs should cease. This does not effect the relative property. Shared costs would be adequately covered by remaining tenants. As indicated above other exit costs need to be drastically reduced as they favor the Village Owners.

  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?

    The solution is to allow the tenant or their representative to place the sale in an estate owners hands. As mentioned above all charges to cease when the tenant vacates the property.

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

    The proposed changes need to go much further as outlined above. It is obviously in the Village Operator to delay sales as they currently benefit from delays in the sale.

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

    Vacation of the Unit.

  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?

    They are improvements.

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

    Costs to the operator can be lowered if a proportion of sales are placed in a Trust vehicle to cover refunds on a tenants exit. Currently the whole amount is placed in general revenue and not available for necessary refunds.

  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?

    No. These should cease when the tenant leaves.

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

    They should only be grandfathered due to financial difficulties proven by an independent auditor.

  11. Please provide any further comments on the reforms.

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