Submission cover sheet
- Name of organisation or individual making this submission
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?
I think the description for Sydney Metropolitan Area is appropriate.
- Are the proposals for appointing a valuer, to determine the value of the property, necessary and appropriate?
Yes, I think that they are.
- 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 when a Resident wishes to sell their residence on their own terms that a binding decision should be made that the Resident is selling the residence without any ability to opt back into the exit entitlement provision. There has to be clarity for both sides and once the decision is made, it stands.
- 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 think what has been outlined covers it. If a Resident has lived in a retirement village under the same operator as when they want to sell the residence, I would hope that Residents would have developed an idea of whether they feel that the operator will be co-operative in attempts to sell a residence. The Resident will have some type of "set" view about the operator which will help guide them as to how they should approach their sale of a residence.
- Are there any additional circumstances the Tribunal should be able to take into account when considering a hardship application from an operator?
I had never considered that there could be hardship provisions for an operator, but, as pointed out in this paper, there well could be. I think that the circumstances, as outlined, are reasonable for both parties.
- Are there any other factors that could affect the setting of a ‘trigger point’?
I cant think of any other factors, but I do think the "trigger point" should be the first day that the residence is marketed for sale.
- 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 that the most "protective" parts of the current provisions in Victoria and South Australia should be adopted. At the time that someone is going into aged care it is bound to be highly stressful for everyone involved with the person who is transferring to that care, and for that reason, anything that can "smooth" the way would be of benefit. The funds should be able to flow across for an easy transition.
- Can you think of any other benefits or costs of this proposal? What are they?
I have nothing to add.
- 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 believe that vacation of the premises is the appropriate time.
- Should one or both of the proposals be ‘grandfathered’? If not, please provide your reasons.
I think that both proposals should be "grandfathered" because there has to be a line drawn in the sand.
- Please provide any further comments on the reforms.
I guess I probably feel that any reforms as outlined will help "tighten up" the elements of a resident leaving a residence in a retirement village. This inquiry has been a very good start and I am sure that things will only get better. The one thing that I do know is that I pity the retirement village resident who doesnt have some assistance from a younger person who has the residents welfare first and foremost at heart. I know that I will be in that position so I truly hope that rules are more "nailed down" than at the moment.