Members Enquiries

Board members answered 26 enquiries from members covering 36 categories in January. The largest number of calls were about Residents Committees (9). The dominant topic covered was the procedures Residents Committees should follow.

Remember to contact Cathy, our Calls Operator with your enquiry in the first instance on 1300 787 213 (option 1), or by emailing calls@rvra.org.au. We will try to get a Board member back to you as fast as possible but do be patient.

Village Visits

If you wish your village to be included in the Village Visit schedule, please contact Cathy on 1300 787 213 (option 1) if you have not already done so.

Updating the Regulation

The Department of Fair Trading’s proposed changes to the Retirement Villages Regulation 2017 is still open for public consultation at

- https://www.haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/retirement-villages-regulation.

If you haven’t already done so, have a look at these recommendations, which have been drafted after extensive consultation with stakeholders in the retirement village sector – including the RVRA. Submissions are due in by 5pm on Wednesday 12th March.

For background, this report showed that the Consumer and Commercial Division of NCAT (which deals with applications from a wide range of areas including tenancy, social housing and motor vehicles) dealt with 52,028 applications for that year (a decrease of 10.3% over the previous year) – of which only 47 related to retirement living.

Using the decrease in the number of applications from village residents as the basis for an assertion that residents are happy is erroneous – in all likelihood that decrease in applications is due to the fact that fewer residents are prepared to go to NCAT. In 2023 – 24 Fair Trading received 102 complaints and 314 enquiries from Retirement Village residents and the RVRA receives between 400 and 500 enquiries from members every year – yet less than 50 go to NCAT!

Why is this so?

As has been submitted to the Minister and Commissioners for Fair Trading previously, the fact that so few disputes go to NCAT is a result of multiple factors.

Age, physical and mental capability and financial resources militate against residents using this means of resource.

This is a vulnerable segment of the population - computer literacy is not high; most have modest financial resources and typically are on a fixed income.

I believe that the current procedures and ultimate recourse to NCAT and/or the courts, do not adequately recognise the real and distinct power imbalances in disputes between the parties.

The delays inherent in seeking recourse to NCAT as well as the potential expense and stress are reflected in the minimal number of cases brought to the Tribunal.

Residents of retirement villages have an average age of 80+ years - and accordingly in almost every case suffer the impediments that accompany aging.

• Limited (and diminishing) mental, emotional and physical resilience.
• Limited knowledge of, or skills in, computerised communication and research availability.
• Varying levels of education and advocacy skills.
• Typically, on a fixed income and need to husband their asset and financial resources. The threat of needing to seek legal representation is a definite impediment.
• Typically, captive to their village - usually it is not economically feasible to move to another village in the event of a disturbance of the status quo.

Not to talk about the unfamiliarity of, the difficulty of travelling to, and the physical and emotional trauma involved in participating in a formal tribunal hearing lasting several hours in front of an operator with a legal team.

Comments from the RVRA’s Ageing Without Fear Report* indicate that residents were frightened to take on the might of the operator in a formal court environment. Many saw this as a form of elder abuse.

The RVRA has been fighting long and hard to establish that NCAT isn’t an appropriate forum for members of our vulnerable and ageing population who are forced to seek recourse.

So getting back to Mr Twain - I believe that the majority of residents are happy with their lot (the recent Australia-wide RVRAs survey showed that 84% of participants felt satisfied or very satisfied living in their village) but the decrease in NCAT cases is definitely not an indicator of that happiness!

Craig Bennett

* RVRA Ageing Without Fear Survey Report June 2023 - for more info see https://www.rvra.org.au/education/research-ageing

A1: The Operator can only use the money from the CWF to fund capital maintenance as itemised in the budget or, if the residents pass a special resolution, for another specified reason. The residents can vote to distribute all or part of the CWF in equal shares to the residents of the village provided the money is not required to fund capital maintenance. However, note that the legislation specifies that the refund to residents should be in equal shares, and not in proportion to their contribution to the CWF through their recurrent charges.

Q2: When last year’s Budget was due, the Manager informed us that the increase in recurrent charges for the following year would be less than Consumer Price Index (CPI), we didn’t need to vote, and we wouldn’t need to receive any paperwork. After we objected that we need to see the budget it was put up on the Village Noticeboard. While we expected that expenditure would be the same or more than the previous year, many of the item’s had expenditure that was lower. There wasn’t enough in the budget to cover gardening and cleaning and there was an item called “advertising” . We also noted an amount for the Asset management Plan preparation. The Manager assured us this was all legal, and that we can’t change anything. Our Residents Committee went along with this, but we want to avoid the same thing happening with the 2025/26 Budget, which the Manager has already told us will not require a vote. Can residents reject the Budget someway?

A2: Your Operator is required to provide information on the recurrent charges and the Annual Budget even if residents’ consent is not required. The Operator must provide each resident with a copy of the Proposed Budget (including the 3-year report) at least 60 days before the commencement of each financial year (s 112). Putting it on a noticeboard is not sufficient.

The copy of the proposed Annual Budget must be accompanied by a notice stating that residents “are taken to have consented to the proposed Annual Budget” (Reg 20 (3)). Further, a notice of variation in recurrent charges must be given to residents at least 14 days before the change is due to come into effect (s105(1), s105A(3))

The Residents Committee can scrutinize the details in the proposed Annual Budget, Quarterly accounts and Annual Accounts, and may request any further information from Management that’s needed for them to understand these accounts. They might want to query for example “advertising”. If it’s advertising of the village for sales purposes, then it must not be in the budget. However, the right to request information on the Budget under s114(2) does not apply.

Even when residents do not need to vote on recurrent charges or the proposed Annual Budget, they do need to meet to vote on the proposed Auditor unless the term for a previously approved Auditor is not about to expire (the maximum term that can be approved is 3 years) or a new auditor was selected at another meeting (such as the Annual Management Meeting).

Even though residents aren’t voting, a meeting at the time of the Annual Budget can be helpful because it provides an opportunity for the Residents Committee to ensure that residents understand the items in the budget and to raise any concerns.

If the Residents Committee or residents think there are any irregularities in the financial papers or that any items on the proposed budget are contrary to legal requirements they should raise the issues with the Operator. If concerns are not resolved, the Residents Committee could consult an accountant or take the matter to NSW Fair Trading or to the Tribunal.

Diane Hart
RVRA Board Member & Chair Education Centre