DICKINS v SOUTHERN CROSS CARE (NSW & ACT) (Retirement Villages)

Dickins brought an application against Southern Cross Care (NSW & ACT) (Retirement Villages) before the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The applicant, a resident of one of the respondent’s retirement villages, alleged that the respondent harassed and intimidated her. She also claimed that an air conditioner in her premises was a fixture, and that the method of calculation of recurrent charges was incorrect. The respondent denied the applicant’s claims and counterclaimed for unpaid fees. The tribunal was required to determine whether the respondent’s representatives harassed and intimidated the applicant, whether the air conditioner was a fixture, and the correct method of calculating recurrent charges.

The tribunal found that the respondent’s representatives did not harass and intimidate the applicant, as the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to prove this. The tribunal also found that the air conditioner was not a fixture, as it was not intended to be a permanent part of the premises. However, the tribunal found that the method of calculation of recurrent charges was incorrect, as the respondent did not comply with the Retirement Villages Act 2012 and Retirement Village Regulation 2013. The tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the applicant with details of the method of calculating recurrent charges and to pay the applicant for the cost of replacing the air conditioner.

The tribunal made several orders, including that the respondent provide the applicant with safety inspection reports and details of the method of calculating recurrent charges. The tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant for the cost of replacing the air conditioner and interest on that amount. The tribunal further ordered the respondent to include details of payments into and out of the capital works fund of the village in its quarterly accounts, to comply with certain regulations in relation to the proposed annual budget for the village, and to pay certain amounts for smoke alarms and concreting work. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the applicant’s costs of the application.