Retirement village exit entitlements and recurring charges cap

Submission cover sheet

  • Name of organisation or individual making this submission

    Anonymous

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?

    When referring to Sydney the term "Sydney Metropolitan Area" is appropriate. The area shown in Figure 3 of the Discussion Paper is sufficiently expansive to capture residents who used to live close to Sydney CBD but have retired a little further out.

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

    Appointing an independent valuer could be important to protecting the interests of village residents or their families where disagreement exists between the resident or their family and the operator. Where parties cannot agree on a valuer the process provided in the Retail Leases Act 1994 seems equitable 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?

    Residents need to have the flexibility to choose to opt out of the exit entitlement provisions for various reasons (eg:- no urgency to sell property or to take advantage of favourable market conditions). However, residents should Not be able to put out then back in and the Tribunal may be asked to determine whether the resident or family should pay the recurring charges where any sale is unduly delayed by their actions. Consideration also needs to be given to the operators need to manage the funding of exit entitlements.

  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?

    Evidence of marketing the property widely, reasonable renovation of the property and unreasonable time the property remains unsold due to actions of the operator. This item is comprehensively covered in The Discussion Paper points.

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

    Only where a family is unreasonably revisiting or delaying selling.

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

    The trigger point needs to be the date the resident gives notice of intention to exit their residence.

  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?

    The provisions current in Victoria and South Australia would defitely be of benefit to NSW residents particularly where they would be moving to aged care accommodation.

  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?

    Yes, the 42 day period for both categories of residence should begin when the resident permanently vacated the premises.

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

    Neither of the proposals should be grandfathered because this would be highly discriminatory against existing residents and would be against the spirit and full intention of the reforms.

  11. Please provide any further comments on the reforms.

    Generally the reforms are equitable and should address many of the inequities of the current system. Where adjudication is required the references in the Discussion Paper would provide workable ways to resolve disputes.

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

Website https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au

©