Consumer Vic hiding behind fine print?

Advocate for Retirement Village legislative reforms Mr. Les Scobie claims Consumer Affairs Victoria are using the fine print in their booklet Guide to choosing and living in a retirement village to step aside the issue that information in their booklet can and does mislead prospective retirement village residents.

On Page 15 of the booklet Consumer Affairs Victoria makes the definitive statement in regard to the charging of deferred management fees, "how not-for-profit villages improve their services or subsidise maintenance charges" 

Mr. Scobie has lived in a not-for-profit retirement village since 2007 and states that from his lived experience the statement is not correct certainly for the village in which he resides and potentially many others. That the statement led himself and his wife into believing that there would be some financial advantage from a not-for-profit village generally not available from a private enterprise village and this influenced the ultimate decision they made.

On recently advising Consumer Affairs Victoria that the statement is not correct in every case and that it has the capacity to mislead, Consumer Affairs Victoria simply advised that he should have read the disclaimer in their booklet. 

Mr. Scobie stated "I am deeply disappointed that an organisation with a charter such as Consumer Affairs Victoria of protecting consumers would hide behind the disclaimer in their booklet rather than address the issue.  The issue being does a definitive printed statement by Consumer Affairs Victoria have the capacity to or actually does mislead older Australians in their assessment process of which style of village, a for profit or a not-for-profit retirement village, in which to obtain residential accommodation for their retirement years."

Mr. Scobie stated that "even the addition of the word 'some' such as 'how some not-for-profit villages' would make the statement less definitive, provide less opportunity to mislead."