Retirement Village Communal Facilities Costs

The illusion of the costs of the communal facilities as presented by retirement village operators.

Retirement Village Communal Facilities Costs - The deferred management fee is often quoted by operators to prospective residents as the necessary mechanism for the purpose of paying for the communal facilities within the village. What retirement village operators don't quote is the total value of deferred management fees gained in order to recoup the cost of construction of these communal facilities. Maintenance of these facilities is paid for by the residents on top of the original deferred management fee charged.

In the example below Table 3 shows that over 4 x 7 year occupancy periods the operator received a total of $805,200.00 in deferred fee payments for just one unit within the village. In just the first occupancy period for a village of 100 units in this example there would be $15m received to recoup the initial cost of the communal facilities, a whopping $80.52m over the 4 x 7 year cycles in just one village of just 100 units.

[blog_subscription_form]

Differing Financial Outcomes for Retirees

Differing Financial Outcomes for Retirees - An example of two very different financial outcomes for a retiree where one retiree may take residential accommodation in a retirement village, the other in an apartment within the general community.

Table 1 shows the financial outcomes for the retirees to be vastly different, one based on a right to occupy retirement accommodation in a retirement village as opposed to renting retirement accommodation in the traditional sense. It clearly demonstrates that occupying a unit in a retirement village comes with all the costs of ownership and more but without any of the benefits. Again a dramatic reduction in the capital wealth of a retiree over what can be a very short period of time.

Table 1

[blog_subscription_form]

Deferred Management Fee

The Retirement Village Deferred Management Fee model creates an accelerated transfer of wealth from retirees to village owner/developers.

Table 1a below inclusive of inflationary adjustments shows the capital wealth for one unit transferred from a retiree to a village owner / developer over a 10 year period.

The table uses common contractural parameters within the industry although there can be variations.

Table 1a

 

[caption id="attachment_296" align="alignright" width="300"] retirement village poverty trap[/caption]

The major problem with the DMF model is that it was created decades ago to enable charity and not-for-profit organisations to provide retirement accommodation to retirees with limited financial resources, where they had little income but some capital.

Today in these private enterprise times the ingoing amount required to enter a retirement village is typically closer to or even at the price of a similar property within the general community. The Deferred Management Fee model is a way of hiding the high cost until the lessee leaves to go into assisted care.

All of this transfer of capital wealth to predominantly private investors comes at the direct cost of the life savings of Australian retirees. This has the capacity to place them at financial risk should the need arise for a change of direction in their life, eg: return to the property market or enter an aged care facility. 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1b below shows accelerated returns to retirement village investors from the deferred management fee model in the order of 2 to 2.5 times that of an investor for a traditional residential investment unit.

These accelerated returns for a retirement village investor are driven by:-

1. 
   

   The property fully maintained and refurbished at the cost of the retiree

   
   


2. 
   

   Capital gain from the increase in value of the village property – can be subject to contract provisions

   
   


3. 
   

   Use of the retiree's refundable amount - 0% capital provided by the occupant – refundable only on the departure of the occupant

   
   


4. 
   

   Multiple deferred management fees over multiple occupancies – the shorter the deferred management fee payment period the greater the opportunity to charge a new maximum fee

   
   


5. 
   

   Deferred management fee charged on sale price - subject to contract provisions

   
   

Table 1b

If there is no discount to the entry cost there is no justification for a Deferred Management Fee.

If there is a Deferred Management Fee then it should reflect only the applicable discount.

Retirement Village = Asset Stripping

Retirement Village = Asset Stripping - The use of the Deferred Management Fee where a Retirement Village owner/developer charges an in-going price commensurate with a similar property within the general community can equate to simply asset stripping from the retiree.

Respected finance reporter Alan Kohler wrote in an article titled Retirement Village rorts: the booming scandal in 2014 -

"Taking them one at a time, deferred fees are where you buy a unit in a retirement village at full price, but when the time comes to sell you have to pay the village owner a large percentage of what you get."

"There are a variety of deferred fee schemes contained in retirement village contracts and they all rely on the fact that when an elderly couple signs it, they tend not to pay much attention to what might happen to the assets when they die."

In a retirement village the retiree does not gain ownership of the property, the retiree pays the costs of ownership, the retiree does not get the benefits of ownership. Through the deferred management fee, maintenance costs, exit costs and the impact of inflation the retiree faces a dramatic loss in asset value in what can be a very short period of occupancy.

The retirement village industry advises prospective residents that you are not buying property you are buying a lifestyle. The question has to be put however but at what point is this lifestyle cost fair and reasonable.

The table below shows the various impacts on the value of the capital base of a retiree together with a comparison of simply renting within the general community.



 

For serious retirement village reform in the best interest of retirees legislators should give consideration to the following:-

• The use of the Deferred Management Fee model should be restricted to not-for-profit organisations.


• If there is no discount to the entry cost there is no justification for a Deferred Management Fee.


• Where there is a Deferred Management Fee it should reflect only an applicable discount from a property value available generally commensurate with  the retirement village in-going fee.

NSW Enquiry into Retirement Villages

NSW Government Fair Trading announced:-

NSW Enquiry into Retirement Villages - "As part of its four-point plan to improve retirement village living, the NSW Government has commissioned Kathryn Greiner AO to lead an inquiry into the NSW retirement village sector.

The inquiry will review the protections offered to residents, and ensure that Fair Trading has the necessary powers to make sure retirement village operators are complying with the law.

The investigation will look at concerns raised about the fairness and transparency of business practices of retirement villages in NSW, and includes:

• transparency and honesty of marketing activities


• clarity of fees and contractual rights and obligations for prospective residents and their families


• suitability and fairness of village maintenance and operational practices to maintain resident safety


• availability and cost-effectiveness of dispute resolution mechanisms


• fairness of arrangements to levy maintenance fees to maintain the village and address building defects.

The inquiry will also look at opportunities to improve Fair Trading’s administrative and operational practices that could help address unfair practices in the sector.

The inquiry seeks the views of current and former residents, their families and advisors, on the issues raised in the Terms of Reference (PDF size: 161kb).

Residents and members of the community are invited to attend a consultation forum to discuss their concerns at locations across the State. Forums will be held in Sydney, Hornsby, Ballina, Port Macquarie, Newcastle, Wollongong, and Wagga Wagga during October 2017.

Register for your free seat to a community forum here.

If you are unable to attend a public forum, you can still make a submission by using the online submission form or written submission to the address listed below. "

Abandoned residents spark village warning

Brisbane Times in an artcle by Adele Ferguson reports -

'Steer clear' - abandoned residents spark village warning

" "Stay well clear of retirement villages," say the families of residents and former residents at Berkeley Living, a retirement village that saw state authorities forced to intervene on Friday evening after unpaid staff walked out.

What is equally shocking is that the retirement village has been dogged with issues for years, yet the regulators have been missing in action.

Earlier this month Fairfax Media revealed that Berkeley, run by convicted criminal Stephen Snowden, stands accused of not paying more than 30 families when the units sold. In some cases they were on-sold to new residents, who didn't get paid when the units were re-sold. Snowden denies the allegations and has called the families "scumbags". He denies not paying staff.

A recent media investigation into one of the biggest operators Aveo laid bare concerning business practices including punitive fees, churning of residents, complex contracts, misleading marketing promises and questionable safety and emergency services. In the case of its Aveo Way contract, the exit fees are 35 per cent after three years, and its Freedom Aged Care contracts exit fees are 40 per cent after two years. This means if a resident pays $600,000 for a Freedom unit, then leaves or dies after two years the exit fees are $240,000.

It is why the federal government needs to stop procrastinating and launch an inquiry into the sector or adopt recommendations made back in a 2007 parliamentary inquiry and regulate the sector federally.

If there was any doubt, it should take a look at the Victorian government, which recently held a parliamentary inquiry then outlined a set of industry reforms that are a damp squib.

The Andrews government's idea of what reform looks like prompted various housing residents and advocates to issue the following scathing statement: "The pleas of residents have fallen on deaf ears, with many of the proposed reforms pushed off into the long grass of more reviews."

What was particularly flabbergasting was the decision not to create an ombudsman to help residents resolve disputes, despite the overwhelming evidence. The report said "significant further analysis and evidence are required before a position on this recommendation can be determined". "

Full story available here:-  'Steer clear' - residents spark village warning

Retirement Village Contracts

What’s wrong with retirement village contracts -

Nestegg.com.au reports in an article by Lucy Dean:-

"Retirement village contracts can be so complex that Australians should seek legal advice before signing them, a consumer protection lawyer has urged.

The senior policy officer at the Consumer Action Law Centre, Katherine Temple said it can be “difficult” for retirement village residents and their families to understand their rights as a result of the complexity of the contracts.

Noting that some contracts can be more than 100 pages in length, she said: “I would suggest to residents and their families to get legal advice before moving into a retirement village.”

She highlighted three main “red flag” areas to “really be aware of”:

The deferred management fee

This fee is usually a percentage of the sale price of the unit. “Obviously, you don't know what the sale price of your unit will be so you don't know how much that fee will cost you,” she said.

The lawyer explained that due to the deferred nature of the fees, people often don’t have enough money to move somewhere else once the exit fees are taken out.

Reinstatement and refurbishment costs

“Although in the contract you'll be liable to pay them, you don't know what the amount will be until you go to move out,” she said.

The loan-lease arrangement

Ms Temple said the “other big trap” is understanding that many retirement villages operate under a loan-lease purchasing arrangement. This means that tenants are not actually purchasing property, rather the licence to reside in the village.

“That's not obvious a lot of the time in the sales pitches that people hear that talk about buying into a retirement village. You're not buying a unit, you’re just buying the right to live there and that's very different and so they can impose a lot of restrictions on what you can do while you live in the village.”

Full article here:- what's wrong with retirement village contracts "

Retiree Loss of Capital Wealth

Capital wealth transfer comes from the Deferred Management Fee model used in the Retirement Village industry and is financially damaging to Australian retirees. The Deferred Management Fee model creates an accelerated transfer of wealth from retirees to village owner/developers. Table 1 below, inclusive of inflationary adjustments, shows the capital wealth transferred from a retiree to a village owner / developer over a 7 year period, this is for just one unit in just one retirement village.

The table uses common contractural parameters within the industry although there can be variations.

The capital value reduction to the retiree is at the rate of -$1,668.21 per week of occupancy.

The capital value gain to the owner / developer is at the rate of +$3133.78 per week.

The major problem with the DMF model is that it was created decades ago for not-for-profit organisations to enable retirees with limited financial resources to obtain affordable retirement accommodation, accommodation at a price much lower than a commensurate cost within the general community.

Today in these private enterprise times the in-going amount required to enter a retirement village is often commensurate with a similar property within the general community. This in-going amount being above development costs and higher than can be justified to warrant the use of the historic Deferred Management Fee model.

Real Retirement Village Reform

Real Retirement Village reform outlined by Paul Latimer - Swinburne University of Technology - Swinburne Law School

It's Time for Federal Regulation of Retirement Villages

"As Australia’s population ages, increasing numbers of seniors move to a growing number of retirement villages. Unlike time shares, which are ‘managed investment schemes’ and therefore regulated as ‘financial products’ under corporate law administered nationally by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), the Commonwealth withdrew from the regulation of retirement villages in the 1980s on the basis that at that time they were local, usually run by religious bodies and charities and were not of national concern. The regulation of retirement villages was taken over by the States and Territories under their non-uniform Retirement Villages Acts and the common law. Until then retirement villages, often indistinguishable from Commonwealth regulated timeshares, were regulated in the original State and Territory Uniform Companies Acts in 1961 as ‘interests’, and then in later Commonwealth legislation as ‘prescribed interests’ by the forebear of ASIC, the then National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) with the State and Territory Corporate Affairs Commissions as its ‘delegates’.

Today retirement villages, which are largely owned and managed by the corporate sector, raise many issues of national concern such as accountability, fees and the rights of residents. Some aspects of retirement villages such as directors’ duties, fundraising, prospectuses and unregistered schemes are regulated as corporations by ASIC under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), but retirement villages are not regulated as ‘financial products’ under corporate law.

This article challenges the effectiveness of State and Territory regulation of retirement villages and calls for federal regulation of retirement villages by bringing retirement villages into the definition of ‘financial product’ in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth). As financial products, retirement villages would then be regulated by Commonwealth legislation which deals with financial services and financial markets, as regulated by ASIC. These laws include consumer protection provisions such as the prohibition of misleading or deceptive conduct, unfair contract terms, unconscionable conduct, licensing and high standards for those in the retirement village industry. This would result in a return to Commonwealth leadership of the regulation of retirement villages to harmonise and to consolidate the current mix of State and Territory regulation with federal legislation including an enforceable Retirement Villages Code of Conduct."

Full paper here:   It's Time for Federal Regulation of Retirement Villages



 

Second Retirement Village Calculator

The Sydney Morning Herald reports -

Estimated cost calculator introduced amid crackdown on retirement village sector.

"Prospective residents of retirement villages will be able to calculate the estimated costs of moving into a village before signing a contract, with the launch of a new online calculator by NSW Fair Trading on Tuesday.

Take this link to the online calculator - NSW Fair Trading Retirement Village Calculator

Minister for Better Regulation Matt Kean said the online calculator would allow residents to "compare village prices and ultimately ensure they're not getting ripped off by unscrupulous operators".

"It can be overwhelming to assess retirement village costs due to a wide range of fees and charges that are often incurred at different times," he said.

A compliance blitz and an inquiry into the sector, headed by Kathryn Greiner, who recently conducted an internal review of the NSW Catholic school system, has begun.

The inquiry will include a number of community forums to be held around the state, seeking feedback from the public.

Community forum sessions will be held at the following locations:

• Hornsby RSL, 4 High Street, Hornsby - Tuesday October 3, 10am-12pm


• Newcastle Exhibition Centre, 309 King St, Newcastle West - Wednesday October 4, 10am-12pm


• Wagga Wagga International Hotel, Cnr Lake Albert Rd & Sturt Hwy, Wagga - Tuesday October 10, 10am-12pm


• Wollongong Diggers Club, 82 Church Street, Wollongong - Thursday October 12 - 10am-12pm


• SMC Conference & Function Centre, 66 Goulburn Street, Sydney - Tuesday October 17 - 10am-12pm


• Ballina RSL, 1 Grant Street, Ballina - Wednesday October 18 - 10am-12pm


• Port Macquarie Golf Club, Ocean Drive, Port Macquarie - Thursday, October 19, 10am-12pm

See full article here:- http://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/estimated-cost-calculator-introduced-amid-crackdown-on-retirement-village-sector-20170911-gyez5n.html

"

 

 

Governments Push Financial Doom

Governments Push Financial Doom - Federal & State Governments are actively directing many retirees toward financial doom despite being advised of the negative financial impact on retirees of their statutory & regulatory actions in the retirement village sector.

The poor response of the Victorian Government to their own retirement living enquiry has received criticism including an observation that "Sadly the Victorian government has been seduced by the industry notion that better consumer protections are at the cost of retirement village innovation and growth."


The above was part of a summary statement on Page 28 of the LSIC report from the committee in March 2007 despite hundreds upon hundreds of retirement village residents together with consumer advocate organisations, providing evidence to the contrary in their submissions to the enquiry.

In June 2007 the ABC 4 Corners program 'Bleed Them Dry Until They Die' aired showing statements such as above to be a representation of the failure of legislators and regulators to fully understand what was and still is happening to older Australians in the retirement village sector.

Problems with the retirement village industry can be summarised into some key areas:-

1. Low operational standards of some operators.


2. Outdated legislative frameworks.


3. A failure of regulatory bodies to police and enforce breaches of law.


4. A failure to provide easy access to the law and justice for retirement village residents.


5. The continued use of the retirement village 'Deferred Management Fee' business model designed for charity organisations of decades past.

Federal & State Governments through statutory and regulatory frameworks are encouraging retirees to step into the financial mire of retirement villages. Legislators don't understand or won't acknowledge the negative financial implications for retirees of the deferred management fee model used in this industry sector. A business model designed for charity organisations of decades past not the modern, slick, profit driven, private enterprise organisations of today.

The following example shows the potential financial impact on a home owner should the home owner decide to sell the family home and downsize into a retirement village. The example uses common contractural parameters found within the industry although there can be variations.

The example shows a difference in outcomes over just 7 years of nearly $750,000.00.

The positive social outcomes of living in a retirement village are acknowledged but at what financial cost to retirees. The outcomes are financially debilitating for many retirees and yet an outcome as described above is actively encouraged and even promoted by Federal & State Governments.

It is important to note that the financial damage done in the example above is not done by bad contracts, by bad operators, by poor legislation, by slow acting regulators. The financial damage done is from just one primary thing the deferred management fee business model.

Legislators and regulators can tinker with contracts, fact sheets, dislosure statements, access to the law and while all these areas are important nothing will stop the financial damage done to retirees unless the deferred management fee business model itself is outlawed or heavily reformed.

In this new century is there really room for a consumer product that even lawyers and financial advisors cannot fully explain to their clients.Should not the retirement village industry be based simply on you either buy it or you rent it, they are two concepts everybody understands even legislators and regulators.

Governments Push Financial Doom

[blog_subscription_form]

Village Run by Convicted Criminal

Fairfax media reports on another shocking retirement village example:-

Residents at retirement village run by convicted criminal forced to fend for themselves.

"Jane Cartledge has spent almost a decade trying to claw back hundreds of thousands of dollars from a retirement village operator that she didn't know had a criminal past and connections to underworld figures.

The battle to get back the $270,000 she is owed from the sale of her mother's apartment at Berkeley Living in Victoria's quiet bayside suburb of Patterson Lakes, has cost her time, money and damaged a relationship with her brother.

Cartledge says she is dismayed that the village's operator has been allowed to sell apartments and not pay residents or their families.

"Cream and bastards rise to the top," she says.

Only this week the Andrews government, in Victoria, faced heavy criticism after releasing its response to a parliamentary inquiry into the sector from various consumer groups and residents as "failing to deliver" and pushing proposed reforms "into the long grass of more reviews" that would mean victims continue to fall through the cracks.

Fairfax Media can reveal that Berkeley Living, a company trading name registered to Berkeley Property Management, is operating as a respite centre under the directorship of a 25-year-old man with little prior business experience and a criminal record.

It is also linked to former aged care magnate-turned-bankrupt Stephen Snowden, who has been described as a "serial scammer" after Westpac chased him in 2013 in the Supreme Court of Victoria for $13 million of money he allegedly misappropriated.

The court found in favour of Westpac and the bank appointed a liquidator to Berkeley Living. In 2014 the bank won a court order to bankrupt him but the bank says it got little back for its efforts.

Snowden took over management of the village in 2009 when the previous operator ran into financial trouble and his business was wound up.

Snowden says residents had agreed to receive only a proportional return. He planned to improve his financial situation by developing land near the village.

Snowden says he's keen to return to managing the village.

But Colin Walker, one of the 30-plus families trying to get back their money, believes Snowden has never been far away. Walker lives close to the village and says has regularly seen him there. At one stage Snowden listed one of the units as his residential address on company documents.

Walker sold the unit after his father died in 2011. Since then he has been trying to retrieve almost $100,000 that he is owed after exit fees and other fees are deducted.

I have gone to Consumer Affairs Victoria, which is a paper tiger.
Colin Walker

"I have gone to Consumer Affairs Victoria, which is a paper tiger. I have written to my local member, the media, Westpac, Moorabin CID for fraud and nothing happened."

He says many residents and families were too old and too afraid to speak up for fear of reprisals. He says the only avenue left was legal action, but that would cost at least $250,000, which some of the families couldn't afford.

"The whole situation is a complete debacle," he says.

Cartledge says her family is owed $275,000. She says her mother would be devastated if she knew the money she worked hard for all her life hadn't gone to her children.

Like Walker and the many other families, she feels let down by a system that has let retirement village industry fall through the cracks."

Full article here :- Residents at retirement village run by convicted criminal forced to fend for themselves

Retiree Pleas Ignored

Retiree Pleas Ignored.

The Victorian Government has responded to the LSIC enquiry into Retirement Living.

The Consumer Action Law Center, Council of the Ageing, Housing for the Aged Action Group and the Residents of Retirement Villages Victoria released a combined statement.

"Response to Retirement Housing Inquiry fails to provide access to justice

After six months of waiting, the Victorian Government has responded to the Inquiry into the Retirement Housing Sector, conducted by the Victorian Legislative Council.

The Victorian Government’s response to the Parliamentary Inquiry has failed to deliver, according to retirement housing residents and advocates. Despite nearly 800 submissions to the Inquiry and recommendations that promised meaningful reform, the pleas of retirees and residents have fallen on deaf ears, with many of the proposed reforms pushed off into the long grass of more reviews.

While the Victorian Government has accepted the Inquiry’s recommendation to launch a review into the Retirement Villages Act 1986 (the Act), it has pointed to various other inquiries and reviews underway, stalling a much-needed comprehensive review of the legislation. A review of the Act has been delayed until an unspecified date.

Of serious concern is the failure to remedy the serious problems identified in providing access to justice for the thousands of older Victorians and their families who are unable to resolve disputes with their retirement housing provider.  The Government can fix this by creating an ombudsman for low cost, timely and binding resolution of disputes.

According the Victorian Government’s response, ‘significant further analysis and evidence are required before a position on this recommendation can be determined’. Given the number of submissions outlining problems with dispute resolution in this sector, along with casework experience of leading community legal centres such as Consumer Action and the significant costs involved in going to court, we are surprised that further evidence is needed by the Victorian Government before it will act.

In relation to improving management training standards, the Victorian Government has left it up to industry to sort out. The response has also failed to deliver any meaningful change to harsh exit fees which can lock people into contractual arrangements. This is wholly unacceptable.

Residents and their families will ultimately pay the price for the Victorian Government’s inaction on retirement housing reform.

Comments attributable to:

Gerard Brody, CEO Consumer Action Law Centre

• If you’re an older Victorian and want to resolve a problem with your retirement living, it should be cheap, quick and accessible. The evidence has shown that we need an ombudsman scheme for this sector.


• Recent piecemeal inquiries by the Victorian Government into the sector have failed to reduce the complexity of contracts or improve outcomes for residents. We had hoped for a strong response from the Government today that showed it cared for residents and their families. Unfortunately, we were left disappointed.

Lawrie Robertson, Vice-President Residents of Retirement Village Victoria

• There is no commitment in the Victorian Government’s response to improving the rights and protections for residents.


• Our members had hoped for quick implementation of a simple, free, binding dispute resolution service and they have been left bitterly disappointed.

Ronda Held, CEO COTA Victoria

• This is a lost opportunity for leadership in responding to the concerns of thousands of older Victorians and their families.


• The Victorian Government had overwhelming evidence of the problems in this sector, and that evidence has been ignored.

Fiona York, Co-Manager, Housing for the Aged Action Group

• None of the main concerns of residents have been adequately dealt with.


• Residents’ concerns about unfair and confusing fees, management practices and dispute resolution have been either dismissed or deferred."

Infection Control Procedures

Australian Ageing Agenda reports -

"The Minister for Aged Care has ordered an “urgent review” into the infectious disease management practices of all aged care facilities following an increase in flu-related deaths in residential aged care this winter.

Minister for Aged Care Ken Wyatt told AAA the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency would “examine the management of infectious diseases outbreak procedures, including vaccinations of staff and residents, across the aged care sector.”

Questions posed by AAA to Minister Wyatt regarding the scope and nature of the agency’s review were referred to the quality agency.

The details of how the examination will be conducted and what it will involve are currently being finalised, a spokesperson for the quality agency told AAA on Wednesday morning.

The review announcement came on Sunday when Minister for Health Greg Hunt and Minister for Aged Care Key Wyatt also announced that Australia’s chief medical officer Professor Brendan Murphy would look at ways to boost vaccination rates among residential aged care workers including making the flu vaccination compulsory.

Both investigations have been prompted by the deaths of now eight residents at St John’s Retirement Village in Wangaratta in Victoria and reports of fatalities from the flu at Strathdevon Aged Care in Tasmania.

“Older people are always vulnerable to the flu, but the many deaths this year are unacceptable,” Mr Wyatt said.

Minister Wyatt said he has also instructed the quality agency to conduct a review audit of the St John’s Wangaratta and the Strathdevon aged care facilities to assess their performance against the 44 accreditation standards, which includes infection control systems and processes.

“The quality agency has been advised that the Strathdevon home is being reopened, meaning this review audit will begin on Monday, 11 September,” Mr Wyatt said.

“The review audit of St John’s Wangaratta is also expected to start next week but this will depend on when the home is reopened,” he said.

The completed review audit reports will be provided to the secretary of the Department of Health and will be published on the quality agency’s website."

 



 

Act In Good Faith

" In the end the prospective resident signs the documents in good faith and hopes that the village owner/developer has acted in good faith also. "

Many residents in retirement villages around Australia in 2017 would relate to the statement made by Mr. Robert Boyne to the House of Representatives Standing Committee enquiry into Older People and the Law way back in 2007.

Mr. Boyne advised the committee, " In the end the prospective resident signs the documents in good faith and hopes that the village owner/developer has acted in good faith also. "

Given the recent revelations highlighted on the ABC 4 Corners program and in the Sydney Morning Herald and Age newspapers, village residents could be forgiven for feeling that this 'act in good faith' by the residents through the years 2007 to 2017 has not been matched by village owners/developers in a multitude of cases.

7 Deaths @ St. Johns Wangaratta

ABC News Reports:-

Seven elderly residents from a nursing home in Victoria's north-east have died during a flu outbreak, the state's health authorities say. The deaths occurred at St John's Retirement Village in Wangaratta, which is run by the Anglican Church.

The Department of Health and Human Services said the retirement village had 146 residents and 200 staff, with 123 people affected by flu during an outbreak over the past few weeks.

The seven residents who died were aged between 70 and 94, and had other conditions that made them particularly susceptible.

The department said it had worked with the facility to manage the outbreak and ensure strict infection control measures.

It said the outbreak was now subsiding.

Wangaratta Bishop John Parkes said the outbreak has been an "extraordinary and unusual event" unlike any they had ever experienced before.

"It has been a very difficult time," he said.

"Of course the tragedy is we've lost seven residents who are part of the St John's family and that is dreadful for them, for their families and for the staff and the organisation."

"But we mourn the loss of any resident and seven [dead] in one influenza epidemic is a tragedy for their families and for us."

Thirteen people are still sick at the home, which will be in lock-down for at least another week as long as no-one else develops flu.

Aged Care Minister Ken Wyatt said as soon as the outbreak is over, the facility will be audited.

"My thoughts are with the families of those affected," he said.

"The Australian Aged Care Quality Agency will conduct an urgent review audit of the Wangaratta retirement and nursing home facility."

Victoria's acting chief health officer Dr Brett Sutton said the flu is particularly dangerous for frail people in aged care facilities.

"The deaths have occurred mostly in the last week, they were all in elderly people in their 70s [and] into their 90s, all with pre-existing conditions so they were vulnerable to significant illness," he said.

"It's a reminder that flu is really deadly."

There have been twice as many outbreaks of the flu this year than there were in 2016, with 208 respiratory outbreaks in aged care homes this year compared with 104 for the same period last year.

The health department said there had been more than 11,300 confirmed cases in Victoria in 2017, with many more notifications still expected.

"We've had aged care facilities hit particularly hard this year with a record number of outbreaks in those settings and we've had elderly people in general affected more than most years," Dr Sutton said.

"They [the elderly] are vaccinated in aged care facilities largely, including this one, but the vaccine doesn't work as well in the very elderly so it's incumbent upon those who are visiting and the staff in those facilities to try and be immunised and to exclude themselves from work if they're unwell."