There are certainly a few.
Printable View
Can you explain what you find amusing about it for me.
Jigger, it ain't what you don't know that will hurt you. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
I am vastly clueless about a lot of stuff, I know it and I want to learn so I'm less clueless. This is a good thing sport.
This is the strategy that VNZ is employing at the age of 17 which will see them become extremely successful.
But you don't even understand it.
As long as you're doing trump nicknames, what's yours SailorSam
Govt unveils proposed changes to Retirement Villages Act
The government has released a consultation document with proposed changes to the Retirement Villages Act.
It follows a review of the law which was prompted by lobbying from consumer groups and the Retirement Commissioner, the latter of which has argued the current model does not work well for residents.
The proposed changes include stopping fees being charged to residents after a unit has been vacated, replacing the current dispute resolution scheme, requiring operators to cover the costs of maintaining operator-owned chattels/fixtures, and requiring villages to repay outgoing residents’ capital to them within 12 months.
“The proposed changes strike a balance between fairness for consumers and making sure the sector is supported to meet future population demand,” Associate Minister of Housing Barbara Edmonds said.
The consultation period opens today and closes on November 20.
Not a disaster
https://www.hud.govt.nz/assets/Uploa...cument-7_3.pdf
Review of the Retirement Villages Act 2003: Options for change
Discussion paper
August 2023
"91. It is not clear whether the remedies under the Fair Trading Act 1986 in respect of ‘unfair contract terms’ are sufficient for retirement village ORAs. Accordingly, we are seeking feedback on whether a specific power to declare a term unfair should be included in the Act or regulations. This power could be held by the Court or a regulatory body with relevant expertise, such as the improved dispute scheme (discussed in Part C). A term could be considered unfair where it:
a. causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under an ORA
b. is not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the party that would be favoured by the term
c. would cause detriment to a party if it were applied.
92. Terms declared unfair would be void and unenforceable. This power would be over and above any remedies in the Fair Trading Act 1986"
Does anyone on here know which terms in an ORA could be deemed unfair?
Bit worried about the costs of maintaining operator owned fixtures and fittings. If villages have to pay for refurbishment costs, of fixtures and fittings, the costs of maintenance, charged to residents would have to increase. After all chattels depreciate in real terms and have a limited life. If villages have to cover these costs, they have to charge a rental cost as a reimbursement. Or have I got that wrong.