Retirement village exit entitlements and recurring charges cap

Submission cover sheet

  • Name of organisation or individual making this submission

    John Martin

  • Authorised delegate/contact person

    John Martin

  • 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?

    I have no comment on this issue.

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

    I consider the proposals necessary and appropriate.

  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?

    I think residents should be able to opt out, once and without giving a reason. I think a resident should be able to change their mind and later decide to opt in, at which point there should be no further changes.

  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?

    Is that the correct question? If an operator applies for some form of relief, then the obvious ground is that they dont have the funds. If they have tried to sell without success, then any relief would revert to the current rules.

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

    Only financial capacity to pay.

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

    I think the points listed are reasonable.

  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?

    I think the problem would be more manageable if the operator paid the DAP referrable to the estimated exit entitlement.

  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?

    Vacating the premises seems reasonable as the former resident no longer receives any benefits from the recurrent charges.

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

    My experience has been of having my mother move into residential aged care, and 18 months later the monthly levy is continuing and there is no certainty when the unit will be sold. I would like this to end, and for that reason I would not be in favour of preventing people in my mothers situation missing the benefit of any reform.

  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.