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?

    The area shown in figure 3 of the Discussion Paper is sufficiently expansive.

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

    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 the flexibility to choose to opt out of the exit entitlement provisions, however they should not be able to opt back in and the Tribunal maybe asked to rule on payment of recurring charges.

  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?

    This item is comprehensively covers 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 resisting or delaying selling.

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

    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?

    Yes, particularly where residents 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 residents should begin when the resident permanently vacates the premises.

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

    Grandfathering of either proposal would discriminate against existing residents and would be against the spirit and full intention of the reforms.

  11. Please provide any further comments on the reforms.

    Where adjudication is required the references in The Discussion PPer 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.