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?

    No Central Coast NSW

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

    In our case no as all buyback are at cost less DMF The valuer proposal needs to address who pays for the valuer cost and then is there an appeal process

  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?

    N/A non registered interest

  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?

    If there is an appeal process in place when does the buy back period commence ?

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

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

    At what point does the time period commence . If the unit needs a full refurbishment that alone may take 3 months and impact on operators cash flow In a slow real estate market the operators may be once again affected by cash flow if there is a compulsory buy back time especially in regional and remote areas

  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 issue of entering aged care does add complex to the issue. both states provsions seem to offer greater protection to the resident,however if the unit cant be sold in a timely fashion I believe that the vacant units maintenace fees still need to be paid eg Transfer to aged care need a DAP payment plus the operator s covering the DAP payment plus renovation costs plus loss of maintenance fee . If the operator provides both services there needs to be consideration of the transfer and operational cash flows

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

    Operator will be impacted by cash flow and there will be a ongoing issue and reduced cash flow and may be capital improvement

  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?

    No if a unit needs refurbishment than the time period needs to be extended,otherwise i can agree with the 42 days

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

  11. Please provide any further comments on the reforms.

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