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?
Towards the end of this submission I have made a comment about discrimination that the Department could be left with a class action suit without taking into consideration the Major Regions and Areas of the State. Residents have been waiting for some type of Consumer fairness for a very long time. My Wife and I are lucky that we are not RIH, but under our contract we have a licence and therefore get our money in six months after we have handed the keys back permanently. Vide other comments Area & Regions in other parts of this submission.
- Are the proposals for appointing a valuer, to determine the value of the property, necessary and appropriate?
The appointment of a valuer is a difficult one - calculating a fair property value would be up to the valuer and the problem arises , whose side is he on and in the pay of? and finding an independent one could be quite difficult in the smaller areas of the State.
- 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?
Sale by Residents - should only be permitted under the Strata Scheme, Company Title and where the contract permits it, however there should be a rider clause that should the price be unsatisfactory that they can invoke.
- 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?
I was a delegate for the RVRA in the original CTTT NSW forum on RVs until its demise Dec 2014 and at the introduction of the NCAT - My opinion was that the the new Tribunal was wholly only for the law not necessary for the justice of the residents in RVs or common sense, mainly because the residents do not understand the nuance of their rights nor on the whole legal savvy that would give them the chance to promote their case. Now how can one tell whether the operator has done everything in their power to enable the sale of the premises, when they can continue to get from the RIH recurrent charges in relation the Capital Gain of the RIH lease contract up and until this matter has now been brought to their notice i.e, the time frame in other words sell the unit/villas of the RVs at the the lower of the Capital Gain contracts before the RIH that has the 100% this means they (ops), who have drought proofed theirselves against having to pay any such recurrent charges, whereas with the proposed alteration to the Act will mean there can be no longer any paying for years of the payment of the recurrent charge because of a non sale,
- Are there any additional circumstances the Tribunal should be able to take into account when considering a hardship application from an operator?
There is really no such item as a deferred management fee, Operators get the Market Value, they have their residents pay for items, there is little or no transparency or accountablity except in Villages where there are some residents with a financial acumen, however many of these are known to the operators and many are fostered by the ops to keep them onside. I only know too well, as many residents are elderly and usually coerced into accepting as gospel what the operator or so-called residents Committee is telling them.
- Are there any other factors that could affect the setting of a ‘trigger point’?
The Trigger Points - Yes I cannot foresee the reason why Regions such as Newcastle, Central Coast, Wollongong, and other larger Regional Cities or Areas are being discriminated against by the increase to the year?
- 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?
One should always look at other States legislation and select the items that affect the residents, who are not informed that should be to their benefit, as they get very little information from their Management - once some years back our operator used to include in their budget that they were in partnership with their residents, but this seemed to alter when they changed from the loan licence to the lease agreements (RIH) and then particularly when they introduced the 100% Capital Gain lease.
- Can you think of any other benefits or costs of this proposal? What are they?
With the advent of Aged-Care this will speed up the transitioning for them (residents) and remove the current burden to when they have to wait until their unit/villa is sold
- 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 - I have preempted this in previous segments of this submission
- Should one or both of the proposals be ‘grandfathered’? If not, please provide your reasons.
By allowing one Region that has the so-called majority of Retirement Villages the shorter term then I believe that the Department is leaving itself open to a class action of a discriminatory nature.
- Please provide any further comments on the reforms.
The enquiry that was held was long overdue and the recommendations were made to hopefully finally give consumers (residents) some sought of level playing field that i have in many submissions in the past to Fair Trading and that have only made minor gains in the different sparse previous Act Review. I also appeared before the Senate 2006 of Old Age and the Law that was left mouldering in the Archives and very little if nothing was ever brought by the Federal Govt to the light