Failure to Acknowledge Retirement Village Lived Experience

A review of the Victorian #retirementvillage Act is on in 2020. They haven't listened to the lived experience before, what will it take to get them to do so now. @DanielAndrewsMP @MarleneKairouz @consumervic #springst #vicpol pic.twitter.com/dgRDfcsLdG

— Les Scobie (@retvilldotnet) January 15, 2020

Legislators Simply Tinker at the Edges

Yes legislators simply tinker at the edges, lacking the real courage required. Poorly advised by bureaucrats and generally ignoring what the lived experiences and advocate bodies tell them, eg the LSIC Inquiry 2017. @DanielAndrewsMP @MarleneKairouz @consumervic #springst #vicpol https://t.co/R1qLPUiLnN

— Les Scobie (@retvilldotnet) January 15, 2020

Victorian Retirement Village Residents Seeking Reforms

Victorian retirement village residents are demanding meaningful reforms. Previous governments have failed retirees, does this current government have the political courage to push back against industry lobbying. @DanielAndrewsMP @MarleneKairouz @consumervic #springst #vicpol pic.twitter.com/vKOGaTTfM9

— Les Scobie (@retvilldotnet) January 3, 2020

Worst Retirement Village Laws Victoria

Labor = the worst retirement village laws in the country. 72% of Retirement Villages owned by commercial for-profit operators. 74% of Retirement Villages residents DO NOT have unit ownership, merely right to occupy despite paying big bucks to enter. Legislators need to act now. pic.twitter.com/HJLSje7A7B

— Les Scobie (@retvilldotnet) December 24, 2019

Delivering For All Victorians We'll See In 2020

Let us hope 'FAIRNESS' becomes No.1 in #retirementvillage reforms. It is sorely needed as to this point Victoria is lagging well behind. 'Delivering for ALL Victorians' will be tested in 2020. #vicpol @DanielAndrewsMP @MarleneKairouz @consumervic @michaelobrienmp #springst pic.twitter.com/yjQFaS3bin

— Les Scobie (@retvilldotnet) December 20, 2019

Fairness A Key Element For Consumer Protection

Vic Legislators. 72% of Retirement Villages owned by for-profit operators. 74% of Retirement Villages residents DO NOT have ownership, merely right to occupy. Will a new Act reflect 'FAIRNESS' for residents? @DanielAndrewsMP @MarleneKairouz @consumervic @michaelobrienmp #springst pic.twitter.com/FKybrhJinD

— Les Scobie (@retvilldotnet) December 20, 2019

Delivering For All Victorians To Be Tested

Claims of Delivering for all Victorians to be tested, public submissions to review of Vic #retirementvillage legislation closing. @DanielAndrewsMP @MarleneKairouz gov't openly states consumer protection cannot come at cost of growth and innovation of private enterprise. #springst pic.twitter.com/amKyLxjujy

— Les Scobie (@retvilldotnet) December 4, 2019

Victorian Government to Review Retirement Villages Act

Public submissions to Victorian Government review of #retirementvillage legislation closing. Will they get it right this time? History indicates they will fail, seduced by industry lobbying. Maybe just import NSW version. @MarleneKairouz @consumervic @michaelobrienmp #springst pic.twitter.com/5hb7lW3Oam

— Les Scobie (@retvilldotnet) December 4, 2019

Retirement Village Definition Harms Victorian Retirees

Legislated definition of a retirement village requires the payment
of 'in-going' $'s often equal to a 'buy' price with no transfer of property ownership. A major contributor to financial harm suffered by Victorian retirees. #springst @DanielAndrewsMP @MarleneKairouz @consumervic pic.twitter.com/iLno0CwT6q

— Les Scobie (@retvilldotnet) November 28, 2019

Victoria To Review Retirement Village Act

25/11/19- Victoria to review Retirement Villages Act 1986. Anything less than what NSW have done will be failure for Victoria. #vicpol @DanielAndrewsMP @MarleneKairouz @consumervic @michaelobrienmp #springst @NSW_FairTrading pic.twitter.com/wvSI1m2qDI

— Les Scobie (@retvilldotnet) November 24, 2019

Delivering For All Victorians To Be Tested

Claims of 'Delivering for all Victorians' to be tested following announcement of review of Retirement Village law. @DanielAndrewsMP @MarleneKairouz gov't openly states consumer protection cannot come at cost of growth and innovation of private enterprise #vicpol #springst @sdanck pic.twitter.com/DRTbMoasim

— Les Scobie (@retvilldotnet) October 30, 2019

Lack of Clarity in Retirement Village Law

Lack of clarity in the law allows careless, undisciplined or deliberate over spending by retirement village operators https://t.co/TRLFpeRwDc to be recouped from residents says advocate. @DanielAndrewsMP @MarleneKairouz @michaelobrienmp #vicpol @TerpsMLC @TaniaMaxwell14 @smh pic.twitter.com/8TlAiwElgT

— Les Scobie (@retvilldotnet) October 30, 2019

Votings Rights of Single Retirement Village Residents Trampled.

Retirement Village advocate Les Scobie has written to the relevant minister over concerns the voting rights of single Retirement Village residents are being trampled.

"The Hon. Marlene Kairouz,

Minister for Consumer Affairs,

Level 16, 121 Exhibition Street,

Melbourne. Vic. 3000.

Dear Minister,

Re:- Need for amendment to Section 38(4) of the Retirement Villages Act 1986.

In the Act under Section 3 Definitions the voting rights of couples (not co-tenants) at an annual meeting are defined as having only one vote.

RETIREMENT VILLAGES ACT 1986 - SECT 3

Definitions
(2) If—
(a) under Part 6 a resident may vote at an annual meeting; and
(b) that resident and another resident or other residents are jointly entitled (whether as joint tenants or tenants in common) to share accommodation at a retirement village—
the right to vote conferred by that Part may be exercised by one only of those residents and, if those residents disagree as to which of them is to exercise the right to vote, the resident whose name appears first on the residence contract conferring the joint residence right may exercise the right to vote.


This provides protection for single retirement village residents in that their voting power on important matters is no less than a couple.


However when it comes to an increase in village fees beyond an increase in the rise of the Consumer Price Index, Section 38.4 of the Act allows a vote of couples to be double the voting power of a single resident.

RETIREMENT VILLAGES ACT 1986 - SECT 38 Increases in maintenance charges

4. Subsection (2) does not apply if the payment of a maintenance charge that is greater than the adjusted maintenance charge has been approved by resolution of a majority of the residents at a meeting of the residents or is approved by resolution of the residents committee.

Section 38.4 either by design or default is allowing village operators to work around a protection afforded single residents by Part 2 of Section 3 of the Act the Definitions. The lived experience being operators present to the body of village residents Section 38.4 alone without Section 3. The words 'residents' and 'meeting' in their stand alone literal meaning can easily be interpreted as removing any voting power protection for single residents. The legislation may in fact be designed to produce this result but if so it contains a gross unfairness for single retirement village residents.



In the interest of improved financial protections for single retirement village residents consideration should be given to amending Section 38.4 to read -

4. Subsection (2) does not apply if the payment of a maintenance charge that is greater than the adjusted maintenance charge has been approved by resolution of a majority of the residences voting at an annual general meeting of the residents or is approved by resolution of the residents committee.
   

It may be argued that the voting power of single residents are still protected by the definitions in Section 3 of the Act despite the wording of Section 38.4, that the use of the words 'residents' and 'meeting' in Section 38.4 are just a general reference. Clarity in the law however is just as desirable as clarity in any contract.
Please give serious consideration to amending Section 38.4 by the removal of the words 'residents' and 'meeting' to be replaced by the phrase 'residences voting at an annual general meeting'. Single retirement village residents should have identical voting power to couples particularly on matters that can have a negative financial impact upon them.


Thank you,

Les Scobie,"

Concern Over Retirement Village Special Levy.

Retirement Village reform advocate Les Scobie has written to the responsible minister expressing concern over a lack of clarity in the legislation as to the capacity of a village operator to impose a special levy where there has been an over spend on the maintenance budget.

"The Hon. Marlene Kairouz,

Minister for Consumer Affairs,

Level 16, 121 Exhibition Street,

Melbourne. Vic. 3000.

Dear Minister,

Re:- Need for amendment to Section 38(1a) of the Retirement Villages Act 1986, lack of legislative protection for retirement village residents from a 'special levy' where a village operator fails to properly control the spending of the maintenance budget.

In Section 38.1 of the Retirement Villages Act 1986 a 'special levy' is defined as -

RETIREMENT VILLAGES ACT 1986 - SECT 38

Increases in maintenance charges
(1) In this section—
"special levy" means a payment which is made by a resident to the owner or manager and which is not—
(a) a maintenance charge;

Poor protection for residents comes from the lack of clarity in the words 'a maintenance charge' rather than say 'maintenance charges'.

Village operators can hide behind this lack of clarity in the Act to enable careless, undisciplined or deliberate over spending of the maintenance budget, they then have the capacity of using a 'special levy' to support this spending. Whether this budget overrun has come about by design or by circumstance, the use of a 'special levy' in this way brings an increased financial burden upon residents.

Operators claim the words 'a maintenance charge' means a special levy cannot be a category of a proposed maintenance budget as opposed to a special levy cannot be used for an overrun in maintenance charges. The legislation may in fact have been designed to produce this result but if so it contains a gross unfairness for financially vulnerable residents. It grants village operators a virtual 'blank cheque' spending environment despite the setting of a budget. Any legislative controls in Section 38 of the Act, Increases in Maintenance Charges beyond CPI, to protect residents are totally negated if the operator can come back at the end of the year and simply impose a 'special levy'.

In a modern retirement village contract operators insert the following example from an actual contract -

Clause 23.2 - If the total Maintenance Charges (for any one Financial Year) collected from all the residents of the Village is insufficient to cover the operating costs for that Financial Year (“shortfall”), the Manager may impose a special levy to cover the cost of the shortfall under Section 38.6 of the Act.

Section 38.6(b)(iii) then contains the following -

RETIREMENT VILLAGES ACT 1986 - SECT 38

Increases in maintenance charges
(1) In this section—
(6) Despite anything to the contrary in a residence contract, a management contract or the by-laws, a resident is not required to pay a special levy unless—
6(b)(iii) the residence contract, the management contract or the by-laws provided that the residents are responsible for the expenditure or the class of expenditure which the special levy is intended to cover.

There is no room here to discuss the complexity of the pressures upon each and every village resident to support the imposition of a special levy, in effect simply rewarding an operator for careless, undisciplined or deliberate over spending.

Consideration should be given to amending Section 38.1 to read -
Increases in maintenance charges
(1) In this section—
"special levy" means a payment which is made by a resident to the owner or manager and which is not—
(a) maintenance charges;

Clarity in the law is as important as clarity in the contract.

Please give serious consideration to amending Section 38.1 by the removal of the words 'a maintenance charge' to be replaced by the words 'maintenance charges'.

Thank you,

Les Scobie,"

Victorian Retirement Village Legislative Review

The @DanielAndrewsMP government is moving toward a review of the #retirmentvillages Act. Governments have been here before and failed. Will @MarleneKairouz and @consumervic get it right this time. Sadly history says they won't. #vicpol #springst @michaelobrienmp @VictorianLabor pic.twitter.com/T8YGsBNw8V

— Les Scobie (@retvilldotnet) September 12, 2019

Retirement Village Legislation Review For Victoria

Victorian Government to review #retirementvillage legislation. Will they get it right this time? History indicates they will fail, seduced by the industry lobby again. #vicpol @DanielAndrewsMP @MarleneKairouz @consumervic @michaelobrienmp pic.twitter.com/uakbOcyblQ

— Les Scobie (@retvilldotnet) September 10, 2019

Fresh Review of Victorian Retirement Villages Act

Victorian @DanielAndrewsMP Government reportedly reviewing Retirement Villages Act. Will Vic legislators be seduced again by the industry mantra that increased consumer protection will stifle industry 'innovation and growth'. #vicpol @MarleneKairouz @michaelobrienmp @sdanck pic.twitter.com/6A56u5ta2H

— Les Scobie (@retvilldotnet) September 8, 2019

Federal Laws For Retirement Villages

The direction of the Aged Care industry is leading to longer periods in retirement villages (in home care) and shorter periods in residential aged care. This leaves the States in charge of the elderly! Time for Federal laws for RV's. https://t.co/S7itoxjjoh #agedcare #agedcarerc pic.twitter.com/BzQsONE0BB

— Les Scobie (@retvilldotnet) July 5, 2019

To Say Nothing Is To Be Complicit

Who or what is responsible for the mess in the Victorian #retirementvillage industry. Some individual members carry a large degree but ultimately it is every member, for to say nothing is to be complicit. @DanielAndrewsMP @michaelobrienmp #vicpol #springst @MarleneKairouz @abc730 pic.twitter.com/gZlVpsPKm9

— Les Scobie (@retvilldotnet) July 2, 2019

New Retirement Living Occupancy Laws?

New Retirement Living Occupancy Laws? Sadly they already exist in the #retirementvillage industry at the direct commercial benefit of operators and at the direct financial and emotional cost of retirees. @DanielAndrewsMP @michaelobrienmp #vicpol #springst @abc730 @MarleneKairouz pic.twitter.com/7gEF1mS8RN

— Les Scobie (@retvilldotnet) July 2, 2019