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?


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

    I dont believe this would work because RV real estate is vastly different to other housing markets and would require agents to "up" their skills and knowledge. This would come at a cost which no doubt would be passed onto residents. Yet another assault on our already "thin bottom line". A resident or representative have the right to agree or disagree with the asking price so an "independent" (how independent? they would probably be working in the same locality) valuer would be superfluous.

  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?

  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?

    Proof of active advertising, number of "open days" and presentation of unit. Number of units sold over six (6) month period, listing dates vacated and dates sold detailing number of bedrooms.

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

    Cannot imagine any hardship suffered by an operator that would be greater than that suffered by a resident seeking finance to enter aged care facility, or for that matter, greater than family waiting to conclude the "emotional" trauma of winding up affairs of the deceased.

  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?

    The Liberal National Government pre-election promise to mandate changes resulting from The Greiner Inquiry would be the only solution ie Operators to either sell or buy-back a unit within six (6) months of residents departure (metropolitan area) or twelve (12) months (regional area). It must be remembered residents in-going fees have been used (plus interest) for anywhere up to twenty or more (20+) years so why should there be any financial hardship for an operator , other than poor management. Surely residents are not expected to wear that also?

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

    The costs will never be as great as foreshadowed by operators, residents never leave en masse, and the benefits to the tens of thousand residents is incalculable in practical financial terms and would go a long way to reduce the emotional stress associated with moving to an aged care facility.

  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?

    Definitely YES!

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

    Definitely NOT! For decades operators have "self regulated" and even with the enactment of the RV Act 1999, which although a step in the right direction, didnt do all that it should have. Why? because the Act with all its regulations and amendments is so convoluted the average aged resident does not understand nor I think do many staff. and does anyone in "civy" street understand the difficulty in achieving compliance? Operators have been having "free kicks" for a very long time and of course want very little to change. But change it must or the generations to follow will not be so obliging with their hard earned money. No one wants to see villages standing empty, the concept of RV is absolutely fabulous, it is only the greed that has been allowed to go unchecked, just like a cancer, that has tarnished the whole image. Lets improve this image so that we who live in RVs can say, hand on heart it is the only way to write the last chapter. What wonderful advertising!

  11. Please provide any further comments on the reforms.

    Although a Royal Commission would have been the best way forward, half a loaf is better than none and I commend all who have worked so diligently to bring us to this point. The reforms must not be watered down and must not be "grandfathered". Too many have put their retirement years into this cause and too many have

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