Retirement village exit entitlements and recurring charges cap

Submission cover sheet

  • Name of organisation or individual making this submission

    Ian Oastler

  • Authorised delegate/contact person

    Ian Oastler

  • 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?

    Yes, I think it is

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

    Probably not necessary as the valuation of the unit is what they are currently selling for

  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?

    not sure about this 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?

    I do not know how this can be policed as I know the the previous operator of my village did not show some units that were ready for sale. With the proposed provisions the operator could just show units that it had been compelled to repurchase and not others owned by departed residents

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

    i am unsure how to answer this as some smaller operators could have financial problems where as my village is owned by a large public company.

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

    not sure

  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?

    have not been able to access discussion papers

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

    To the exiting resident many benefits but to the operator many costs

  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, certainly why should be paying recurrent charges when you may have moved into a nursing home or died.

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

    Grandfathering the proposals would work in favour of the operator as I know that in my village we had one unit on the market for over four years and the resident had problems as she had gone into a nursing home and needed the money from the sale of her unit.

  11. Please provide any further comments on the reforms.

    I think that the previous regulations did not protect the residents but favoured the operator as they could leave a refurbished unit sitting there and still collect all the recurrent charges and not trying to sell the unit with no real penalties for them to just to the departed resident

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