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?

    I do not think the "Sydney Metropolitan Area" is appropriate. We live in New South Wales and I consider all retirement village residents should be treated equally regarding retirement village departure.

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

    I consider the appointing of a Valuer (one who is independent but not allied to any of the parties concerned ) is a necessity. Maybe a Valuer could be appointed by the Tribunal.

  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?

    This should be up to the resident. and depends on what their contract states.

  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?

    Cant imagine an Operator in hardship. Residents pay mostly for everything. Operators have received a lot of money from residents over the years in Lease/Loan-Licence, Strata etc. - they should have invested wisely.

  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’?


  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?


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

    This would benefit both Registered Interest Holders and Non Registered Interest holders the same way. I consider the dropping of the Non Registered Interest Holders(Loan/Licence) Contracts in favour of Leases a con to allow Operators to make the unwary pay.

  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?


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

    This has been a proposal for some time - it needs to be put in to force as soon as possible.

  11. Please provide any further comments on the reforms.

    Would have like to have seen changes made to the Act without consultation.

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