OCA - Oceania Group - retirement villages

[trader_jackson]

Arvida policy
30 % is right at the very top end...hardly a gold standard.

Speaking of slipping halo's, I thought RYM guaranteed to pay you out if they couldn't resell your unit within 6 months ? Can anyone else please confirm ?
What happened to that promise and why have they apparently changed it ?

Yes, but unlike summerset (where "no interest paid to resident if unit takes longer than six months to sell"), ARV and RYM do pay interest after 6 months, MET 9 months... Yes, ARV often charges a Deferred management fee of 30% as it is a premium more unique offering (through smaller villages), and they have never had any issues since listing with re-sales, they have always only gone up... I believe OCA also often charges 30%, did we find out what OCA does with paying interest after certain time frame?

I would seen an offer to pay interest sooner (rather than later, or not at all in sum cases) would indicate how sure the operator is in re-selling the unit, so I'd like to think OCA is right up there with the gold standard RYM and ARV and paying interest after only 6 months.

[Beagle]

I can confirm Oceania pay interest from 6 months t.j.

[percy]

Question.
Should retirement villages be regulated to pay out/buy back a "tenant's" "right to occupy" within one month's of the end of such aggreement.[ie the "tenants" death?
Certainly fees should stop at the end of any such agreement.

[Beagle]

In my opinion weekly fees should stop when the unit is vacated, interest should apply from 6 months and a compulsory buy-back should occur if the unit can't be re-sold after one year. My view is this would strike a reasonable balance.

Extract from Ryman's peace of mind guarantee's section of its website.

Repayment protection

It is standard practice for retirement villages to repay your capital sum when the unit has been on-sold. However you will want an assurance that in the event the on-sale is delayed for some reason you will be repaid.

“We guarantee that if the new resident has not settled within six months of you vacating your unit, then we will pay you interest on your occupancy advance until it is paid in full.”

This gives us an incentive to on-sell your unit and repay you promptly. Did you know that in over thirty years the longest time a Ryman resident has ever waited is six months to be repaid their occupancy advance?

I have to say that I am extremely disappointed in Ryman's advertising. The reason that nobody has had to wait materially longer than 6 months is that they used to guarantee to repay within that time-frame. The fact that they omit to tell anyone that extremely important fact (and it is clearly the most material reason why this timeframe has never been breeched) with their current advertising and yet state that nobody has had to wait longer than 6 months gives a false impression that people can rely on this six month maximum term going forward, surely ?

In my opinion, in effect they have deliberately created a false impression of repayment timeframe through the use of their former guarantee, (which they no longer offer) and are now deliberately concealing that vital information to give a misleading impression.
At best I think this is very shady practice, at worst a gross breech of the Fair Trading Act.

[percy]

Consider this.
The tenant in your rental property has signed a lease [right to occupy] for two years.
After one year he/she dies.
Wouldn't you look a fool going to court seeking the rental for the outstanding year of the lease.?
Most probably an even bigger fool if you said it took you 6 months to refurbish the unit and another 6 months to find another tenant.?

[winner69]

When to settle and all that .....what’s best for shareholders.

Isn’t the prime reason for a company existing to maximise profits for shareholders ....and stuff other stakeholders

[percy]

When to settle and all that .....what’s best for shareholders.

Isn’t the prime reason for a company existing to maximise profits for shareholders ....and stuff other stakeholders

They really are due for an Australian Bank type Royal Commission.
"Not in their clients best interest is no longer acceptable."

[Beagle]

Consider this.
The tenant in your rental property has signed a lease [right to occupy] for two years.
After one year he/she dies.
Wouldn't you look a fool going to court seeking the rental for the outstanding year of the lease.?
Most probably an even bigger fool if you said it took you 6 months to refurbish the unit and another 6 months to find another tenant.?

Need to balance shareholders rights with those of the Estate. Estate's often take 6-12 months get the property into a sellable state and to resell people's homes especially in this market therefore my view is the Estate is not materially disadvantaged by my suggestion of a 12 month compulsory buy-back, in fact in some ways such a guarantee confers an advantage. Some old folks die and leave their homes in one heck of a state and it can take a LOT longer than 12 months to bring it up to a sell-able state and re-sell it.

[Beagle]

They really are due for an Australian Bank type Royal Commission.
"Not in their clients best interest is no longer acceptable."

I don't understand you getting so hot under the collar about this ? What exactly do you expect ? Keep in mind commercial reasonableness and what's a reasonable time to bring a unit up to standard / refurbish it and to have a unit on the market and resell it these days.

Also p[lease keep in mind that simply getting a builder and tradesman to commence minor fix up jobs on one's home can take several months in Auckland now, assuming you can find anyone trustworthy to do the work. There's "theory" and then there's what's practical in this market, they're two quite different things.

[percy]

Need to balance shareholders rights with those of the Estate. Estate's often take 6-12 months get the property into a sellable state and to resell people's homes especially in this market therefore my view is the Estate is not materially disadvantaged by my suggestion of a 12 month compulsory buy-back, in fact in some ways such a guarantee confers an advantage. Some old folks die and leave their homes in one heck of a state and it can take a LOT longer than 12 months to bring it up to a sell-able state and re-sell it.

Yes but the estate has title.
In retirement village agreement there is no title.
The village has ownership.
The estate is therefore powerless.
Remember the village has had use of the "right to occupy" upfront money for years.Most probably used it to build half a dozen more units.