Continued Push for RV Legislation Change

Continued Push for RV Legislation Change -   Long time advocate for reforms to Retirement Villages Charles Adams continues his push for amendments to the Victorian Retirement Villages Act 1986.

In a continued push for retirement village legislation reform Charles forwarded to the relevant minister Marlene Kairouz and selected Victorian politicians the following submission,

"The  service/ maintenance fee went up 50%, a month after the writer and disabled wife moved into a unit in a retirement village. This is his suggestion to make the Victorian Retirement Village Act fit for its stated purpose of protecting retirees who consider choosing to downsize by leasing a unit in a loan-lease retirement village.

Nothing much will change for the hundreds of dissatisfied lessees who submitted to the LSIC inquiry, those who presented to the hearings, or for all future lessees.

1. Revise the Retirement Village Act to mandate all future prospective lessees are offered a secure tenure residential tenancy contract**. This is the only known cost transparent lease, and therefore the only model compatible with a free market.This is not to preclude the offer of optional ”interest free capital loan leases”, (theinterest free loan is euphemistically called and ingoing contribution) as it may be more attractive to younger retirees who enter a village unit early and could have a long life expectancy, and a longer duration tenure . It is impractical to compare “Loan Lease” contracts as they obscure the declining cost rate so a free-market cannot exist. For some it offers taxation and or pension advantages.
   


2. Appoint a retiree-housing ombudsman to provide affordable enforceable dispute resolution.
   


3. Require all retirement village managers qualify, within 6 months of appointment, to an independent institution course, covering the RV Act, regulations, ethics, contracts and meeting maintenance needs.

** The village developer/operators will declare this unacceptable, saying they don’t have the capital to build villages without the availability of the zero cost capital, (provided by the “in-going contribution”) even tho they only have 5.7% of the over 65 years demographic. Secure tenure residential tenancy contracts are the norm, in the USA, where over 15% of the over 65s lease in retirement villages.

The zero cost capital is a subterfuge to disadvantage lessees for the benefit of the developer/operators management bonuses and shareholders.

While this is for the Victorian RV Act, the contract model that it generates is so lucrative that it is now the de facto Australasian standard."

[blog_subscription_form]