Retirement village exit entitlements and recurring charges cap

Submission cover sheet

  • Name of organisation or individual making this submission

    Kevern Rowe

  • Authorised delegate/contact person

    Kevern Rowe

  • Position

    Kevern Rowe

  • 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?

    I think that the southern boundary is a bit restricted.. If Gosford on the Central Coast is considered metropolitan then maybe as far south as Wollongong should also be included.

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

    Yes all OK..

  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?

  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?

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

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

    I like the idea of "vacant possession" being the trigger point.

  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?

    DAP payments by the operator against later payouts would assist departing residents.

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

  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..

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

    Grandfathering is a fair outcome for operators because of existing contracts that were voluntarily entered by both parties. However I think that unlimited time frames is most unfair to former residents. I would like to see the grandfathering provisions for existing contracts limited with perhaps a 12 month limit on paying recurrent charges and exit fees.

  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.

Website https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au

©