Housing for the Aged Action Group operates from a philosophy that all older people have a right to decent, secure and affordable housing.
To this end we have worked since our inception in 1983 towards improving the housing conditions and options of older people in the Victorian community.
Our primary focus over many years has been ensuring that older people have access to the public housing system as this is the primary source of accommodation that meets the main benchmarks as described above. However, since 1986 we have seen a steady decline in government expenditure on public housing, and with that, a blowing out of the waiting list for those eligible to apply.
It is of great alarm to our organisation that older people can be forced to wait as long as twelve years to be offered housing from the Department of Human Services and also endure a complex arrangement of entry procedures that would exhaust the abilities and patience of most younger people, let alone those applicants who are seventy or eighty years of age.

While HAAG continues to campaign for more public housing, in the interests of older people on low incomes who require immediate assistance, we cannot simply wait for a government policy solution. Therefore we have had to broaden our scope of interest to other forms of accommodation in a practical process to address the current housing crisis.
This has, to a significant extent, involved the referral of a significant number of older people on low incomes to organisations who manage housing under the umbrella title of Independent Living Units (ILUs).
This sector of housing was originally known as Old Persons' Homes and were owned and operated by non-profit organisations.
The Commonwealth Government provided subsidies to these bodies to establish independent living units, hostels and nursing homes (OR&the L p. 198).
Since the 1970's when funding for independent living units was withdrawn, this type of housing has moved in two main directions: The introduction of a private sector retirement village industry where resident-funded clusters of housing were developed, and the ILU sector that is primarily a welfare based system run by non-profit organisations with the primary aim of assisting a particular target group such as war widows or the congregation from a particular church. It is the latter group that HAAG has focused our work on and that will provide the major focus of our response to the review of the Retirement Villages Act (RVA).

For the purposes of the review in particular, HAAG has conducted two consultation forums for our members - One held with Sharon Barker from Consumer Affairs and another in conjunction with the Older Persons Action Centre. We have also been available to encourage participation from residents 'on site' and have visited two villages and one group of caravan park residents where residents own their 'movable dwelling'. However, to enable a thorough process, HAAG would have preferred to conduct consultations with a much wider number of older people in this form of housing so that a more comprehensive analysis could have been achieved.

Also, we were successful in applying to the Public Interest Law Clearing House (PILCH) for pro-bono assistance from a major law firm, Maddocks Lawyers, to assist us with a legal view to support our submission. Their opinion, which is endorsed by HAAG, focuses on a number of key areas that would significantly improve residents' rights in ILUs by reforming the Retirement Villages Act as well as the Residential Tenancies Act.
Their findings are referred to throughout our submission and are also provided as an attachment to be considered by the review in its own right, as not all matters presented by Maddocks are contained in the body of our submission.

HAAG has also found a book called "Older Residents and the Law" by barrister Rob Phillips to be a valuable resource regarding residents rights in ILUs. His views are noted on occasion through our submission.

HAAG believes that the review could have been more effective if it aimed to comprehensively gather the views of residents by providing longer time lines and specific resources to ensure that maximum resident participation was possible.
This issue strikes at the heart of the central problem. That is, the vast majority of residents have little knowledge of the legislative coverage of their accommodation. Also, residents of Independent Living Units are often too intimidated to even question the management of their accommodation.
Therefore, it is difficult for many of them to participate in such an important review.

Recommendation 1

That the review provides for a speedy introduction of the most vital aspects of residents' rights into the new legislation. Following that process we recommend a further review to implement a more thorough process of consultation with all stakeholders. For our purposes, this would require a substantial effort and resources to reach out to residents to give them the opportunity to 'have their say'.

The two major areas where HAAG has found there are the most prevalent problems in the ILU sector are where
1. Organisations managing units are so small that they struggle to manage effectively due to reliance on volunteer involvement that are unskilled and can be very discriminatory. Day to day management can be anything between draconian and petty in the rules demanded of residents (such as one location where residents are told they have to accept an offer of a flat without prior viewing, and another where the live-in supervisor walks around the flats with her dog while at the same time extolling the virtues of their no pets policy (for residents only it appears).
2. The increasing corporatisation of the non-profit welfare sector is changing the structure of many of the organisations that provide ILUs.
HAAG has had many complaints from residents who believe that the change in culture of the organisation that manages their accommodation has meant a growth in their administration costs but a reduction in the services provided to residents.
At one establishment this resulted in a reduction of a 24-hour security alarm service and a loss in the quality of meals. Another organisation decided to sell a large property in inner city Melbourne to realise the asset, thereby displacing and distantly relocating the 80-90 year old residents.

Most of our work involves trying to help clients who are struggling to cope in the private rental sector and to find them accommodation that fits the following criteria:

· Affordable
· Available
· Provide secure tenure
· Be accessible
· Offer tenant participation

The vast majority of older people who contact our service are private rental tenants who are in difficulty because they are facing eviction due to receiving a 60-day notice to vacate when owners wish to sell their home (sometimes after 20-30 years tenancy of one dwelling), can no longer afford their accommodation due to rent rises (clients paying as much as 70% of their income is common), or need to find more appropriate housing as their needs change with age.

Another significant aspect of HAAG's work is providing support to residents who have difficulties with their accommodation. Our services often advocate for residents of ILUs with problems such as rent rises, repairs, privacy, security of tenure, neighbour disputes and conflicts over village rules.

It is in our contact with ILUs that HAAG has developed a range of concerns about the lack of coverage provided by the Retirement Villages Act, problems with residents' agreements, the management practices of some providers, and in general a lack of control or procedures available to deal with a range of problems that may arise.
In some cases an informal approach to managers of ILUs can obtain results to achieve a reasonable outcome.

However, where the matters cannot be resolved by mediation there are no other options for resolving disputes. This can often cause a sense of bitterness between residents and managers, or a response of resignation by the resident who, at an advanced age, may be unwilling to continue to attempt to resolve the problem due to the stresses caused by taking on such a personal challenge.

HAAG is often similarly frustrated when all avenues of resolution have been exhausted and the client's needs cannot be satisfied, even where an obvious injustice has been perpetrated.
This scenario has engendered a climate of an unequal power relationship between the parties that can have a significant impact on the whole community of older people who live on a site.

The first matter that the review considers is "Whether the objectives of the Act remain appropriate".
The current Act states that its purpose is to "Clarify and protect the rights of persons who live in, or wish to live in, retirement villages". It is within the broad scope of this objective of the review that HAAG wishes to present our concerns and recommendations for change.

HAAG believes there are a number of areas where the Retirement Villages Act does not clarify and protect the rights of prospective and current residents of Independent Living Units.
HAAG client services and members feedback have shown that there are many issues that arise for residents that are not dealt with in the current legislation, or provided in their resident contracts or agreements.
Matters such as privacy, repairs procedures, security of tenure, giving notice to leave and the role of resident committees are silent in the Act.
These are significant matters that, if legislation were available to deal with these matters, would improve the balance of power between managers and residents and ensure that there are clear processes for dealing with common disputes between residents and managers of ILUs.

The Retirement Villages Act is significantly framed to provide protection for the assets of residents, or as Phillips states "the freedom to contract".
While there are many basic residents rights that will be applicable to all sectors of this field, HAAG believes that there are significant differences that warrant ILUs being placed in a separate category.
HAAG is in two minds as to how this should be done. One scenario, as described below, would be to substantially revise the Retirement Villages Act to incorporate all of the major changes required to improve residents' rights. The other approach would be to create a new division within the Residential Tenancies Act.
Please refer to the Maddocks Lawyers opinion that is attached to this submission where they recommend the latter approach.
HAAG's purpose is to recommend the necessary changes. How best to frame those changes into legislation is the role of government. Therefore we wish the Review to consider both scenarios and make a final decision.

Principal differences between resident funded and leasehold retirement villages

The current Act is aimed at people with relatively significant means who, in conjunction with their solicitor, have more scope to negotiate their contracts than people in Independent Living Units.
For example, resident funded villages have deferred management fees, are involved in body corporate type management committees and residents are usually responsible for maintenance of their own property etc.
Many of the issues of concern to these villages relate to the protection of their invested assets and problems about the services their funds are supposed to provide.
Resident funded village residents will always have other legislation that they can rely on to resolve a dispute where it involves their own assets, such as the Trade Practices Act, the Fair Trading Act, Sale of Land Act, Subdivision Act and other forms of civil law (see Maddocks attachment 3.2.1).

Also, fundamental matters of concern to ILU residents such as processes for repairs, rent/fee rises, and privacy/entry clauses may not be applicable to residents in self-funded villages.

There are significant differences for residents who have a license or lifetime/long term lease of a dwelling. This includes those ILUs where ingoing contributions are paid, as the fundamental relationship is still one where the resident does not own any of the property or its assets.
ILU residents have no other legal or financial bargaining power except where there is legislation, backed by complimentary agreements or contracts that protect their rights regarding their accommodation. Therefore it is in the interests of residents of ILUs that any of their issues should be able to be dealt with by use of effective clauses within the Retirement Villages Act itself.
The section of the Retirement Villages Act for ILUs would be similar to legislation provided by the Residential Tenancies Act with the exception that residents of ILUs may require long term/life term leases and that a range of services may be included.
For these two main reasons HAAG believes it may not be appropriate for ILUs to be covered by the Residential Tenancies Act, as the RTA only covers short term leases in recognition of the investment potential of property in the private rental market and doesn't regulate the quality of services provided (see issue headed "Regulation of services").

On an additional pragmatic note HAAG may prefer that ILUs be covered by an enhanced Retirement Villages Act as a review of the Residential Tenancies Act has recently been completed and passed as legislation through the state parliament and significant amendments could not be expected to be considered again for some years.

However, Maddocks advice that there should be a separate division created within the Residential Tenancies Act for ILUs is a compelling view. We also recognise that this approach would also consolidate all ILUs into one division, as the Residential Tenancies Act covers many clusters of this type of housing already where there are no ingoings paid, including clusters of housing in the new rental village industry.
Further advice from Maddocks suggests that it should be possible to incorporate matters such as long term/lifetime leases and services within the Residential Tenancies Act.
Our organisation is open to supporting this view if it is possible for such amendments to be created within a reasonable time frame to afford the necessary rights desperately required for residents.

(see Maddocks attachment 4.1, 4.3)

Recommendation 2

That the Retirement Villages Act or the Residential Tenancies Act should include a separate division for independent living units where residents have a license or long term/lifetime lease. Also, that this type of accommodation be termed 'rental villages' to better define the sector and also incorporate similar types of accommodation that have grown significantly in recent times such as Village Life.

Right to quiet enjoyment

Many resident agreements allow for a manager to enter their premises at any time without notice. Many residents have expressed a great sense of insecurity that this is the case and that they should have the right to negotiate a suitable time for entry and that the purpose for entry be spelled out.
On many occasions HAAG has heard from residents who have complained that managers have entered their unit while they are not at home and see this a violation of their basic rights. A typical complaint involved one resident who was very upset that a manager entered her unit while she was home and in a state of undress. The resident was in great shock yet the manager was unperturbed and continued with his business (allowing a plumber to enter to effect a repair).

Recommendation: The Act should introduce a requirement that formal notice for entry to a residents dwelling be provided by a manager that allows for a time to be negotiated and reasonable notice before it occurs. Such notice should also state the purpose of the entry. Current clauses in the Residential Tenancies Act should be used as a guide.

(see Maddocks attachment 4.3.6)

Privacy

The right to privacy within a residents dwelling is a common concern of residents of ILUs. Specifically, a lack of freedom to decorate a resident's abode is a common complaint heard at HAAG.
Many resident agreements specify certain items that must, or must not, be included within a unit. For example, some agreements state that you must not hang pictures on the walls; others state that only the agency-provided blinds are to be used on the windows, while others say that a person's own curtains cannot be hung.
HAAG has also received many complaints where, for example, a request to install an appliance such as an air conditioner has been denied. HAAG accepts that there can be rules regarding the upkeep and use of common areas, but the way that a resident looks after their own dwelling should be their own responsibility, as long as it does not affect the functional aspects of the unit.
Provision should also be made for a resident to provide additional chattels such as ceiling fans, air conditioners and other modern appliances. Written agreements can be established if required by management that can ensure that resident returns the property to its original condition upon leaving the dwelling. This would also be assisted by the introduction of condition reports, as provided in the Residential Tenancies Act.

(also see Maddocks attachment 4.3.5 regarding condition reports)

Recommendation 3: There should be a requirement that a resident has a right to privacy within his or her own home. This should include the freedom to decorate and improve the comfort of their dwelling to their own satisfaction.

Repairs procedures

Residents needing urgent and non-urgent repairs have no legal procedure available to request maintenance or ensure that a manager complies with their request.
HAAG has been informed of many instances where residents have asked for repairs that are then denied by the manager. Many residents have complained that managers often have an attitude that "you should be grateful for the accommodation we provide you and you shouldn't make complaints". In this instance the resident's only avenue of assistance is to contact an agency like HAAG to advocate for them and appeal to the good will of the management.

Recommendation 4:That a formal process for requesting repairs be introduced. Current clauses in the Residential Tenancies Act should be used as a guide.

(See also Maddocks attachment 4.3.4)

Security of tenure

Security of tenure is a major issue for residents of ILUs.
The vast majority of residents move into ILUs because they are led to believe that it is accommodation provided, as Phillips states, for those who "desire greater security".

Residents, who move into accommodation provided for the welfare of older people, hope and expect that they can live in the accommodation for the rest of their lives, even if their contracts don't specify a long-term agreement. In fact, it is a common feature of HAAG client profiles, that insecure accommodation is one of the common reasons for a deterioration of an older person's health.
One example of such a situation was a case where a large welfare organisation established to provide housing for war widows decided to sell the land and dwellings where thirty older people had lived for many years. They offered alternative accommodation at other sites they owned and each person, many of them who were eighty to ninety years of age, were forced to relocate. While having to accept this situation, residents were put through quite severe stress and inconvenience as well as dislocation from their local community. To ensure this did not happen again, HAAG tried to negotiate a long-term agreement for the residents in their new accommodation. The reply from the Chief Executive Officer of the organisation to our letter of request stated that "Unfortunately I am unable to give a reassurance that the flats will be a permanent home for the residents. While we hope this will be the case, we are a business and it is not possible to predict events in the business world."

HAAG strongly believes that, as ILUs or Retirement Villages are established specifically to
aid people of advanced age (as shown by the Discussion Paper's observation that the average age of residents is 85), that it should be a requirement of the legislation to provide for long term/lifetime agreements to be offered by organisations offering this type of housing.

Recommendation 5: The Act needs to include the availability of long term/lifetime agreements to reflect the long-term purpose of the accommodation required.

(see also Maddocks attachment 4.2.5)

Contracts and residents agreements

Phillips states that most protection is to be found in the individual agreements and that those with an inability to pay for legal advice are least able to ensure rights are included in a contract.

The vast majority of older residents in ILUs do not have the means to pay for legal scrutiny of their contracts and therefore are not able to seek legal advice before entering their accommodation, or to rely on a solicitor's advice if a dispute should arise.
A vast number of residents have demonstrated to HAAG that they have a very poor understanding of the meaning of terms in their contracts and resident agreements.
Many residents enter ILUs because they are desperate to find affordable housing and are under pressure to accept any new offer because of limited time available due to being given a notice to vacate. Not only do we often find there are unfair and unreasonable clauses in agreements, but also they are often so legalistic that they are difficult to understand.

It is often after having some difficulty with management that they have come to HAAG for assistance. To advise clients HAAG has occasionally sought pro-bono support from law firms to get basic advice on contracts. If we are successful in getting assistance it is usually on a one-off basis for the provision of a legal opinion, and not for advocacy. In any case residents have no ability to prosecute even if the opinion is favourable to their position.

Recommendation 6: That contracts and resident agreements be standardised on a prescribed form to reflect the clauses within an improved Retirement Villages Act. This would ensure the simplification of the agreements to improve residents understanding of the terminology.

Residents' Committees

The current legislation is silent about the power of a residents' committee.
It simply states that it represents the interest of the residents of a village.
In HAAG's experience there are a number of concerns about the role of residents committees. Their existence usually reflects the fair management (or otherwise) of the management of a village.
There are very few ILUs that have effectively operating residents committees and if they are functional they reflect a good but informal relationship between managers and residents.
It is rare for the committees to have a formal role such as a presence on a board of management, or even to provide advice and input to the running of their housing. Most commonly if they exist they provide a role on a social level for the benefit of residents.
In the majority of cases they operate under direction of managers where meetings are called on an infrequent basis (for example to comply with the requirement to hold an Annual General Meeting).
Some are run by cliques of residents who are often seen by other residents as compliant with management and not in existence to provide a forum for the discussion of grievances by residents.
Many ILUs do not have a residents committee at all and management often state that this is because the residents don't want one or that "we don't have problems at our village".
In HAAG's experience this is seldom the case.
For residents committees to develop effectively it is necessary for government to provide resources to a relevant community agency to advise groups of residents as to how they can establish a committee and continued support to ensure their effective operation.
Residents committees should also be encouraged so that they become a conduit for the effective dissemination of consumer and residents information about their rights and responsibilities.
Due to our extensive work in this area over a long period of time, HAAG would be pleased to offer our support for this role. This could also develop to the stage where a
Retirement Villages Residents Association would be formed to represent the needs of residents to government, as there is currently domination in debates about retirement villages from the industry perspective.

Recommendation 7

The Act should ensure that Residents Committees have the power to represent the views of residents in a formal way, such as representation on a Board of Management. Also, resources should be provided to the community sector to assist the development and effective operation of residents committees at all Retirement Villages and Independent Living Units and the encouragement of a Retirement Villages Residents Association.

(See Maddocks attachment 4.2.2)

Dispute resolution

There are a range of disputes that arise between residents and management where the resolution depends on the good will of both parties to come to an agreement.
Negotiations between the parties are often unsuccessful and residents who have contacted HAAG have found they have no other process they can follow to have the matter resolved.
The current legislation only provides for a costly and onerous process of arbitration.
There is also no clear process for making a complaint to a government authority such as Consumer Affairs. This has often been used as an argument against reforming the current Act as Consumer Affairs have received very few complaints.
In HAAG's experience there are a few factors that have created this situation.
Firstly, there seems to be confusion with Consumer Affairs itself about its regulatory role.
We have been given varying opinions over a number of years. For example, one view is that they only hear matters related to exemptions from the Retirement Villages Act. Another view is that complaints are accepted but they are unsure whom it should be directed to, as there are no specific officers empowered to deal with such disputes.
Another view has been that the Residential Tenancies Inspectors could deal with a dispute but only in the form of mediation due to their primary role being the regulation of the Residential Tenancies Act.
Indeed, Phillips states, "Complaining to external bodies is rare. The Office of Fair Trading and Business Affairs does not monitor retirement villages or investigate residents complaints".
If our agency has had difficulty sorting out whether there is a complaints process, then what hope have residents got?

Once clauses that provide rights to residents are enshrined in legislation it is vital that it is supported by effective advocacy and compliance procedures. To achieve this government should resource three levels of support and low cost arbitration.

Firstly, community advocacy groups should be provided with the means to advocate for residents where they are in conflict with management with the aim of mediating disputes.

Secondly, inspectors such as those provided by Consumer Affairs Victoria should have the power to investigate complaints by residents.
Third, access to a low cost tribunal such as the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal should be available to residents and management of ILUs and Retirement Villages to determine the outcome of disputes where they cannot be resolved through the first two processes.

Recommendation 8

That resources be provided to community agencies to offer advocacy for residents where they have a complaint, an investigation process by a government authority, and recourse to a low cost tribunal such as the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal if a dispute cannot be resolved.

(See Maddocks attachment 4.2.3)

Improved regulation of management practices within ILUs

HAAG has experienced a range of problems with Independent Living Units where they are managed by small community based organisations. This has often occurred where accommodation has been managed for many years on a local community level and relies on the contributions of volunteers for it's functioning.
HAAG has had many complaints from residents living in this type of environment.
For example, one ILU insists on applicants accepting an offer of accommodation without prior viewing of the unit they are going to live in. They sometimes berate residents who ask for repairs to be done and residents have to ensure they 'stay on the right side' of the manager to feel secure in their tenure.
HAAG has had to intervene on more than one occasion where residents have been threatened with eviction because they have 'taken a stand' on an issue.
This problem of small management groups is also reflected in poor residents agreements and a lack of understanding by management and residents about their legislative coverage.

HAAG believes that self-regulation via organisations such as the Retirement Villages Association is not effective as the RVA's membership is predominantly for the retirement villages industry and membership by many ILUs would not be appropriate. It is also obvious that self-regulation does not bring effective or through compliance as there are only 56 members of the Retirement Villages Association out of a total of 390 villages.

Recommendation 9

The Act should ensure that Retirement Villages and Independent Living Units are registered with a government department to ensure their compliance with a set of government standards about their operation. A mentoring program to encourage best practice within the field would be an appropriate procedure to provide the necessary support.

Regulation of services

There is a substantial need for legislative regulation of services provided to residents in Independent Living Units. While in most cases services are provided at a minimal level, it is expected that this will be an expanding aspect linked to the provision of low cost accommodation to older people into the future.
Trends suggest that increased services will be provided in the rooming house sector, accommodation known as semi-independent living units and new forms of private investment housing for older people on low incomes known as rental villages.
The rapid expansion into four states of a Queensland company called Village Life has put all state governments on notice that there are major concerns where services are provided to people in substantially independent living arrangements.

Residents of Village Life pay 85% of their income in rent and receive two meals a day.
HAAG has received complaints from some residents about the poor quality of the food, yet there are no guidelines for its provision except regarding preparation procedures through the Food Act. Similarly, there is a very loose arrangement for skills expectations of those employed by the company to manage the villages and training of staff appears to be minimal.

Neither the Aged Care Act nor the Health Services Act, that regulate the quality of services in nursing homes and hostels, applies for ILUs. Any delay in providing regulation of services would mean the development of a burgeoning industry unfettered by government scrutiny.

(Also see Maddocks attachment 3.2.3)

Problem with exemptions

Phillips states "the Act allows owners and/or managers to apply for exemptions to all or part of the Act…it means that any rights granted by the Act can be modified or excluded".
HAAG believes that there can be no reasonable reason for an ILU to operate with reduced residents rights. For this reason changes are required to tighten the provisions to ensure that exemptions cannot be given where they may remove any residents' rights.

Recommendation 10

The Act should exclude exemptions that may reduce residents' rights.

Rent Increases

Better regulation is necessary to protect residents of ILUs from unfair fee/rent increases. HAAG has had a number of complaints from residents where they have received very little notice of fee/rent increases. In two cases notices of fee/rent increases have been given to residents of ILUs less than one week before the due date of the next regular rent date.

This has been a great shock to the residents affected as they are reliant solely on the aged pension for coping with their living costs. Unexpected fee/rent increases given at short notice make it very difficult for older people on pensions to adjust their budgets to be able to pay a new amount demanded by managers of ILUs.
In one cluster of ILUs we are aware that at least three residents have refused to pay a rent increase due to the lack of notice. This has created a great deal of tension in the village with no apparent way of resolving the dispute.

In another case we have seen different fees/rents charged for the same type of accommodation. At one particular ILU they charge a higher maintenance fee to residents who have not paid an ingoing lump sum compared to those who have.
The amount is substantially different, in the order of $130 per month, and seems unfair not just because of the differential amount, but that it appears as a penalty for those without the means to have paid an ingoing contribution.
Additionally, these residents who have no assets to rely on to cover any extra payments that their pension can't cover, are least able to pay the higher fee.

Recommendation 11

The Act should provide reasonable notice periods for increases of maintenance charges/rents. The Residential Tenancies Act should be used as a guide.

(See also Maddocks attachment 4.2.4)

Termination of Residency Agreements

(refer to Maddocks attachment 4.2.5)

An additional concern of HAAG, beyond Maddocks opinion, is clause 16(5) of the Act that states that a resident can be asked to leave if the owner produces a certificate signed by two registered medical practitioners stating that the resident requires care of a type that is unavailable at the village and a notice to vacate of at least 14 days is provided.
We are concerned that this clause gives too much scope for managers of ILUs to remove people without an opinion being sought from the resident's own doctor.
Some clients have expressed fears to our organisation that there have been cases where this clause has been used where a resident doesn't 'fit in' to the model of resident preferred by management. Other residents can also share these lifestyle judgements and we have noted cases of a vendetta against a particular resident that really has just required a process of mediation to obtain a resolution of the problem.

Recommendation 12

The Act should include a provision that any decision about the ability of a resident to live independently in a village should be supported by a resident's own doctor. If further evaluation is required then an Aged Care Assessment Service should be involved.

Caravan Park Residents

The Background Paper has identified that there is a significant problem for residents who live in residential parks where a resident purchases a 'movable dwelling' for up to lifetime periods and there are shared facilities. There is considerable conjecture as to whether such accommodation is covered by the Residential Tenancies Act, the Retirement Villages Act, or other contract law.
Residents of one such establishment have complained to HAAG for some years without our organisation being able to establish any clear advice as to which legislation residents should use, or how best to make a complaint. This unclear position appears to be to the advantage of any dictatorial management who understand the lack of clarity and 'call the bluff' of residents who threaten to take action over perceived actions that may contravene residents' rights.

Residents are often in great fear of reprisals and therefore not prepared to follow through with their complaints to a court or tribunal to test the legality of their position. There is a great need for a clearer definition of this type of accommodation and an ability to involve an independent investigations mechanism to take over some of the burden of responsibility for residents affected by threatening behaviour of unscrupulous managers.

Recommendation 13

That government determine a clear definition of legislative cover for residents of residential parks.

This must be combined with better protection of residents' security of tenure to provide the confidence to make complaints without fear of eviction.

Need for effective community education

Across a range of areas regarding the proper operation of Independent Living Units it is necessary that processes be put in place to ensure that managers and residents have a thorough understanding of any new legislation and that also encourages a stronger connection between the organisations, residents and government regulatory authorities.

HAAG has identified at a number of ILUs that there is a climate of fear and victimization.
A large number of complaints from residents to HAAG have been by very courageous individuals who have tried to resolve a problem that affects all residents in a village.
They usually face victimisation from management and suffer severe personal stress.

While effective legislation is the key to giving residents clear options for resolving disputes, it is essential that government also ensure that there are effective community education procedures put in place to encourage compliance and best practice by managers, and that residents have the confidence to pro-actively use the legislation provided.
While HAAG assists many older people who are covered by the Residential Tenancies Act, where there are much better rights for tenants and procedures for dealing with issues, fear of reprisals and eviction is still a major problem. So improved legislation is not the only answer.

Community education processes that have and understanding and empathy for the needs of older people will be required to ensure any new legislation is used by the community. Examples are: The involvement of older people in the community education process to ensure appropriate engagement of residents, the use of information forums at village sites, availability of intensive advocacy and support (particularly for the frail aged), and provision of clear large print and audio-visual information.

Recommendation 14

Legislation must be supported by effective community education and advocacy to ensure the law is available, accessible and actively used by the community.

An elderly couple were given a breach notice after the management committee of a cluster of units decided that this couple were the cause of problems perceived by some other residents in the village.
HAAG, representing the resident, believed that the situation was more of a normal neighbour disagreement and sought to resolve the conflict by writing to the secretary of the village to recommend they put on hold the notice to vacate so that the neighbours could try mediation through the Dispute Settlement Centre. This was considered by the committee but rejected and a 6-month notice was then given. The living arrangement had then become unbearable for the couple and HAAG assisted them to locate elsewhere.

2. Harassment from managers

A tenant living in a small cluster of units in Rosanna contacted us due to alleged harassment by the live-in managers. The tenant believed that the management had a plan to move in family members to reside in the flats and that attempts to evict her were aimed to further this process. Over a few years the managers had served her with a variety of eviction notices.
These included notice by standard letter, notice under the Retirement Villages Act, and notice under the Residential Tenancies Act. All of which were unsuccessful.
Descriptions of problems were outlined in a letter HAAG wrote to the Associations and Incorporations Branch of CBAV requesting an investigation of the organisation as they had operated for some years with only three committee members (all blood relatives).
Threatening phone calls to HAAG from the managers of the site followed the subsequent investigation.

3. Rent Increases

A resident complained about a number of rent increases over a short period of time after the management of a cluster of independent living units had a change of management to a more
business model.
Residents sent management a petition complaining about the rent increases but there was no response from the managers.
Some of the residents are paying as much as $150 a week for bedsitter accommodation with no legal avenues for having their rent independently assessed.
Higher rents are charged for those who could not pay ingoing lump sums when their residency began.

4. Forced relocation and lack of security

A resident of an ILU complained that she was being forced to relocate from her flat to other accommodation owned by the same organisation (with all other residents) as the organisation had decided to sell the land for $7 million.
Each tenant has had to negotiate for assistance with costs to move, argue for their new accommodation to be a similar standard as the one they are leaving, and the new resident contracts have a number of worrying clauses which some tenants are refusing to sign until they can get some legal advice.
As they are unable to pay for legal advice, HAAG is trying to get free assistance from an experienced solicitor who deals with retirement villages, but help is difficult to find.
HAAG wrote to the managers to obtain an agreement that the new accommodation would be long term. The CEO replied that they are a business and that businesses cannot guarantee what may happen in the future. The organisation was established to assist war widows with accommodation and support. It appears they are moving away from this principle.

5. Rent increases and concerns about contracts

Residents of a village in country Victoria are concerned that their rent has increase from 19% of income to 36% with new contracts they are being asked to sign.
Again, without any organisation other than HAAG to offer legal advice, at least half of the residents had refused to sign the new contracts.

There are a number of clauses that concern the residents.
For example, "The organisation is not under any obligation or liability to refund all or part of the donation (ingoing payment)", and "The organisation may end the agreement "where payment for accommodation and services provided to the resident is overdue by two weeks". HAAG is currently negotiating with the organisation on behalf of the residents by holding a series of meetings to try and resolve the dispute.

6. Problems with repairs

A resident of an ILU complained to HAAG about her lack of success in getting repairs done. She complained of excessive heat in her unit due to lack of roof insulation.
Her written request for something to be done was denied and she felt she had nowhere to enforce her complaint. After protracted negotiations with management (and a report from Archicentre) management agreed to allow her to install an air-conditioner at her own expense.

7. Unprofessional management and village rules

An older woman came to HAAG because she was concerned that the large, inner Melbourne ILU she was going to move into hadn't provided her with a contract or agreement to sight and consider before moving in. They had also told her that the rent was to go up one week after she was to move in. A call from HAAG to the manager of the ILU found that they provide no written contract or agreement and had no idea what legislative cover was effective for the accommodation.

Upon moving in the resident was told that she could not put her own curtains up on the windows and that it was her responsibility to maintain the micro-venetian blinds that were provided by management. The resident stated that it was difficult for her to clean the blinds and insisted that she be able to replace them with her curtains.
After a protracted dispute the resident went ahead and replaced the blinds, much to the offence of the management but with no retaliatory action taken against her.
Another matter of concern to the resident was that the live-in supervisor, who walked about the village with her little dog in tow, was very firm in informing the residents that the village has a 'no pets' policy, for residents only of course.