DOWSON and THE MULTIPLE SCLERORIS SOCIETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC.)
[2005] WASAT 36
•22 MARCH 2005
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
STREAM: COMMERCIAL & CIVIL
ACT: RETIREMENT VILLAGES ACT 1992
CITATION: DOWSON and THE MULTIPLE SCLERORIS SOCIETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC.) [2005] WASAT 36
MEMBER: DR B DE VILLIERS (MEMBER)
HEARD: 10 DECEMBER 2004
DELIVERED : 22 MARCH 2005
FILE NO/S: RT 7 of 2004
BETWEEN: VINCENT PARKIN DOWSON
Applicant
AND
THE MULTIPLE SCLERORIS SOCIETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC.)
Respondent
Catchwords:
Variable outgoings - Refurbishment fund
Legislation:
Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA)
Fair Trading (Retirement Villages Code) Regulations 2003, s 43(1)
Retirement Villages Act 1992 (WA), s 3(1), s 13(1), s 13(2), s 15, s 15(3), s 31, Div 4, Div 5, s 52, s 52(1),
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 7, s 11(1), s 73(1), s 167(4)(b)
Result:
Orders made
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Self Represented
Respondent: Mr Ron Stevenson
Solicitors:
Applicant:
Respondent:
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
DR B DE VILLIERS (MEMBER):
REASONS FOR DECISION
Issue
The issue in this matter relates to the application and use of respectively the Refurbishment Fund and Variable Outgoing Fund by the respondent and in particular the uncertainty arising from transfers from the former to the latter for purposes of day to day maintenance expenditure of a retirement village known as "River Pines" ("the Village").
In the course of correspondence and during the hearing several issues and complaints were raised in regard to day to day maintenance and operational concerns within the Village. I am not requested to make a determination on those matters but I take note thereof.
The main concern expressed by the applicant is that that the neither the Residence Agreement nor subsequent queries and/or correspondence received from the respondent provide clarity as to the management of the Refurbishment Fund and in particular what expenditure is allowed to be directed from the Fund towards day to day maintenance payable from the Variable Outgoings of the Village. The respondent concedes that the Resident Agreement is vague in this regard and that several ad hoc attempts have been made to clarity the interpretation thereof.
The applicant is not clear as the exact orders that are required save to request "for management to rectify the problem".
Applicant and Respondent
The applicant is Mr Vincent Parkin Dowson from Unit 25, 25/27 Parkhill Way, Wilson WA, 6107 ("applicant").
The respondent is The Multiple Sclerosis Society of Western Australia (Inc), Lock Bag 2, Bentley Delivery Centre, Bentley, WA, 6983 ("respondent").
In submissions and correspondence submitted to the Tribunal the respondent is also referred to as "the owner" and "the Society".
Orders sought
The applicant is not clear in exactly what orders he seeks. His complaint relates in essence to the fact that residents make contributions to two funds namely the Variable Outgoings and the Refurbishment Fund and that the requirements for disbursements from the Refurbishment Fund are unclear. The applicant contends that in recent years disbursements have occurred from the Refurbishment Fund for what appears to be general maintenance issues. The Refurbishment Fund is therefore in the words of the applicant not being used "for its intended purpose".
The order sought is "for management to rectify the problem".
Application transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal
The application was lodged on 29 September 2004 with the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal established in terms of section 27 RV Act.
The Tribunal invited submissions in response to the application. It received several written submissions from the applicant and the respondent. Correspondence was exchanged and the parties were afforded the opportunity to comment on the other’s submissions. The Tribunal was provided with copies of correspondence exchanged over a period of several years, minutes of meetings and memoranda. A principal hearing took place on 10 December 2004 at which the applicant and respondent were represented.
The Tribunal had not made a determination prior to the matter being transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal.
The State Administrative Tribunal ("SAT") was established on 1 January 2005 pursuant to section 7 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 ("SAT Act"). On the same day this matter was transferred to SAT in terms of s 167(4)(b) SAT Act for continuation.
The President of SAT nominated me in terms of s 11(1) SAT Act to constitute the Tribunal for purposes of determining this matter. In accordance with the transitional provisions of the State Administrative Tribunal Regulations 2004 (reg 28) the matter is therefore taken to have commenced in the Tribunal.
I have taken the submissions and other correspondence received as well as the transcript of the hearing into account in making this determination.
Hearings
A Directions Hearing was held on 16 November 2004. The Principal Hearing was held on 10 December 2004.
Retirement Villages Act 1992 (“RV Act”), Code, Information Statement and Residence Agreement
The land on which the Village is located is the subject of a Certificate of Title which is in the name of The Multiple Sclerosis Society of Western Australia. The land is described as Lot 281 on Diagram 79506.
Pursuant to s 15 RV Act, the Certificate of Title has registered on it Memorial N0 E971573. The Memorial confirms that a portion of the land is used for the purposes of a "retirement village scheme" within the meaning of the Retirement Villages Act.
The Village is a "retirement village" (as defined in s 3(1) RV Act). It comprises 34 self-contained residential units. There is also a Lodge and other areas of common property within the Village
The legal framework against which the Village operates is briefly as follows:
The Retirement Villages Act 1992 defines what is mean by a "retirement village" and "retirement village scheme" (s 1 RV Act); it requires the residence agreement to be in writing (s 13(1) RV Act), it requires that a statement of information and other information are provided to the resident (s 13(2) RV Act), a memorial that the land is to be used for purposes of a retirement village has to be lodged with the Registrar of Titles (s 15(3) RV Act), conflict resolution procedures are provided for (Div 4 RV Act) and certain orders can be made by the Tribunal (Div 5 RV Act). Section 52 RV Act places limits on the orders that I can make. Section 52(1) determines that:
"(1) The Tribunal shall not make orders under this Act that are
inconsistent with any applicable code; or
inconsistent with a residence contract."
In addition to the RV Act above the Retirement Villages Code applies. This refers to the Code of Fair Practice for Retirement Villages 1998 (WA) ("the 1998 Code"). The 1998 Code was superseded by the Fair Trading (Retirement Villages) Interim Code Regulation 2001 which, in turn, have been replaced by the Fair Trading (Retirement Villages Code) Regulations 2003. Those Codes are prescribed by s 43(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1987.
Each Residence Agreement of the Village incorporates an "Information statement for prospective resident" (s 13(2) RV Act). That statement is in the form of a series of questions and answers. A few of the responses in the information statement that are of relevance to the application are:
Answer to Question 2: Variable Outgoings, as defined in cl 1.1 of the Residency Deed are payable by the Resident on a monthly basis. In addition $15.00 per month is payable to the Society’s refurbishment fund.
Answer to Question 3: No services are provided to the Unit except maintenance of unit for fair wear and tear.
Answer to Question 14: The Society will hold an Annual General Meeting amongst others to submit for "discussion and input" by the Residents the budget, changes to services, plans for expansion.
Answer to Question 16: Residents are obliged to pay their proportion of outgoings. Examples referred to as "variable outgoings" are management operation, maintenance, repairing, renovating, replacing, decorating and refurbishing the Village from time to time”.
Answer to Question 22: "The Society has deposited $20 000 into a "Refurbishment Fund" trust account with its bankers. The Resident shall pay into the Society $15 per month levy to be deposited into a "Refurbishment Fund" trust account.
Each unit is occupied pursuant to a Residence Agreement entered into between the respondent and the respective residents of the units (s 13(1) RV Act). The applicant entered into the Residence Agreement on 12 February 1993. Some of the key provisions of the Residence Agreement in relation to the application are:
Definitions: Variable Outgoings means "all outgoings, costs and expenses of the Society assessed, charged, payable or incurred in respect of the Retirement Village or in the maintenance, repair, renovation, control, supervision and security of the Retirement Village including, but not limited to the cost of:
(a)….
(b) maintaining, repairing, renovating, replacing, decorating and refurbishing the Retirement Village but excluding work which is or would be the responsibility of any Resident; …” (my emphasis)
Clause 3.1(a): "The Society shall conduct, manage, operate and maintain the Retirement Village (except for the interior of the Units) as a retirement village. In going so the Society shall:
(i)….
(ii) pay all Variable Outgoings of the Retirement Village not otherwise payable by the Resident or Other Residents; …"
Clause 4.13: "The Society will use the Variable Outgoings to pay the Variable Outgoings and other outgoings … incurred in respect of the maintenance, management and operation of the Retirement Village."
Clause 7.1(a) "The Respondent shall maintain the Unit in good condition except in respect of
(i) fair Wear and Tear; …"
Clause 8.2 "The Resident is subject to the same responsibilities relating to persons and property to which the Resident would be subject if during the Term the Resident were the owner and occupier of the freehold of the Unit."
Clause 13.3 "The Society shall pay all Variable Outgoings, costs and expenses of the Retirement Village which are not the responsibility of the Resident or any other Resident."
Clause 19: "(1) Within SIX (6) months of the commencement of the Retirement Village Scheme, the Society shall deposit into a trust account ("Refurbishment Fund") with a trading bank or building society the sum of $20,000 which sum and all accretions thereto shall be held on trust for the benefit of the Society to be used at the discretion of the Society for the purposes of refurbishing the Retirement Village and the Society may in its absolute discretion from time to time draw moneys from the Refurbishment Fund for that purpose.”
"(2) The Resident shall pay to the Society a monthly levy of $15 per month or such other sum as the Society shall determine providing the increase shall not exceed increases in the Consumer Price Index All Groups Index…The Society shall deposit that money into the Refurbishment Fund as an addition to the Refurbishment Fund."
Applicant submissions
The applicant raised in correspondence and during the hearing several concerns and complaints regarding the general management, operations and maintenance of the Village. Some of these do not necessarily relate to the orders sought but are indicative of general unhappiness about the management of the Village. The applicant also included in his application various correspondence dealing with concerns that he has raised, including the matter the subject of this application.
The following excerpts from submissions by the applicant highlight his concerns in regard to the use of the Refurbishment Fund and the Variable Outgoings:
(a) The residents of the Village make two monthly payments – one towards Variable Outgoings and one towards the Refurbishment Fund. As a general rule the Variable Outgoings are to fund items such as water usage, sewerage rates, refuse removal rates, insurance, management fee and general maintenance of the "common areas". The Refurbishment Fund is towards repairs, replacements, maintenance and renovations within the Village.
(b)The respondent "made an agreement" with the residents on 21 September 2001 as to how amongst other, the Refurbishment Fund would be utilised. This agreement was "rescinded" by the respondent and as a result a motion of no confidence was passed by 33 against 3 at a Residents AGM held on 9 September 2004.
(c)In a letter dated 21 October 1999 to clarify the use of the Refurbishment Fund and a possible increase in the contributions thereto, the respondent remarked that increased contributions to the Fund may only occur in terms of clause 19 of the Residency Deed and in light of the refusal by one resident for the contributions to increase, the "Society shall restrict the use of the fund to painting only. All other expenditures shall be met out of the variable outgoings, as permitted by the Residency Deed".
(d)In a Memorandum dated 5 November 1999 to the respondent, Mr Ron Stephenson the solicitor for the respondent, remarks that the "Residency Deed is very vague on what is defined as refurbishment and what items are the resident's responsibilities".
(e) In an explanatory letter dated 4 May 2001 to the residents of the Village the respondent explains as follows: “For some time now, the Society has been concerned that Residents expectations of what the fund (Refurbishment Fund) will finance were far greater than the fund could possibly meet…It does appear that it is an impossible task to obtain full agreement from 34 units to increase the Fund….Without an increase I have determined that the fund must only provide for all external painting together with internal painting of the Lodge and replacement of carpets, furniture and fittings within the Lodge. The Fund would also be used for some smaller items including hot water systems, stoves and toilets as well as the eventual replacement of cupboards, sinks, bathroom vanities, etc, in units. Without an increase, the fund could not finance the internal painting of units. Thus the Resident will be responsible for floor coverings, curtains, light fittings and internal painting.”
(f) In a letter dated 21 June 2001 the respondent advises that the ongoing conflict regarding the use of the Refurbishment Fund is referred to the Disputes Committee as the respondent believes “it is acting in accordance with the Residency Deed …Under the Residency Deed the Society believes it is free to use the Refurbishment Fund as it wishes” for purpose of refurbishing of the Village.
(g) In a letter dated 21 November 2001 the respondent advised the applicant that the Society remains responsible for all refurbishment, including floor coverings. "…the Society will take responsibility for replacing the floor coverings as part of its refurbishment plan, initially from the refurbishment fund and should that this be insufficient, from its own resources."
(h) In a letter dated 10 December 2003 the respondent sets out in detail the background to the utilisation of the Refurbishment Fund. It is noted that the Residency Deed "does not define the use of the Refurbishment Fund only that the Society shall make an initial $20 000 contribution and the Resident’s (sic) shall pay $15.00 per month increasing by CPI all groups index". The letter goes on to provide an overview of attempts to reach agreement on the use of the fund over several years. In concludes with the following summary of the respondents’ views:
"As discussed with you and the Residents' Committee, we therefore believe that,
1. The use of the Refurbishment Fund is entirely at the Society's discretion (cl 19.1).
2. By definition of Variable Outgoings any item of maintaining, repairing, replacing, decorating and refurbishing can also be met out of these funds.
3. The Resident can only be held responsible for repairs and maintenance other than fair wear and tear, replacement of broken glass (cl 7.1(c)), replacement of electric globes and fluorescent tubes (cl 7.2(b)) and their requirement to "always keep and maintain the Unit including its doors, windows, Fixtures and Fittings, in good and substantial repair, order and condition.
4. The resident is also responsible for the repair, replacement, maintenance and potential removal of fixtures and fittings erected or installed by the Resident or previous Residents."
(i)At an AGM of the Residents Committee held on 9 September 2004 those present decided by a majority of 33 to 3 to adopt a motion of "no confidence" in the respondent's management of the Village.
Respondent submissions
In addition to copies of correspondence from the respondent that were included in the application, the respondent has also made submissions and additional correspondence available. The following are extracts of relevance to the application:
(a) In their letter of 8 September 2004 to the applicant, the respondent notes that "…the Refurbishment Fund is indeed for the benefit of the residential community of River Pines and is managed carefully at the discretion of the MS Society. At this stage, the MS Society has continued to make its voluntary contribution of $600 monthly management fees to the Refurbishment Fund, as it has done in the past two years".
(b) The respondent provided the Audit Reports for the years ending 1998 to 2004. In each of these Reports a separate Statement of the Refurbishment Fund is provided.
(c) In the Outline of Submissions dated 9 December 2004 it is stated in [10] that the “Refurbishment Fund is expressly provided to be used at the absolute discretion of the Society for the purpose of refurbishing the Retirement Village. The Society could use the funds in the Refurbishment Fund to meet the expense of certain things which come within the definition of Variable Outgoings, but there is nothing in the Residency Deed that obliges or even recommends the Society to use the Refurbishment Fund in that manner". In [14] it is noted that "payment were made from the Refurbishment Fund for painting, sewerage, pump and rail replacement, replacement of stoves, replacement of external store door and replacement of 6 hot water systems". In [15] it is noted that "there are a number of expenses which the Society can properly pay from the Refurbishment Fund or pass on as Variable Outgoings. Presently, the Society is intending to use the Refurbishment Fund for external painting, internal painting, the replacement of hot water systems, stoves and WC cisterns, and certain other miscellaneous expenses… It is inevitable that some repair, renovation, replacement, refurbishment etc costs will have to be met from Variable Outgoings". In [19] the respondent refutes the suggestion that an "agreement" was entered into on 21 November 2001 and that it had been breached. He contends that it was merely a letter that "simply voiced the Society's position in respect of the Refurbishment Fund at the time".
Hearing 10 December 2004
The following are excerpts from the transcript of hearing that took place on 10 December 2004 of additional points of relevance to the application:
(a) Applicant: "And the refurbishment levy was to fund major repair or replacement. And that was the understanding on what I bought the village..." (p 6). “All the residents are asking for is that something is definitive, that’s all." (p 9) "I'm in favour of increasing the refurbishment fund but to know where we stand. In fact I put up a proposal which was failed because one person couldn’t be in it.” (sic) (p 11) "The expenditure of the refurbishment fund – that’s why I’m not happy ….But by transferring the usage of the refurbishment stuff into the variable outgoings, well, they're going to put up the variable outgoings, whereas the variable outgoings will be static, its better for us that if we’re going to pay more money is to be paying it in to the accumulating fund." (sic) (p 15 to16).
(b) Respondent: "From the volumes of correspondence as you can see, I think it shows that we’ve attempted that (to solve the problem). Because we do understand we have a serious problem….The concerns really, as I see them, stem around the refurbishment fund and its use….the fund couldn't meet everything that the residents had expectations for." (p 22) "Now, from our understanding and all the legal advice we’ve had in terms of the residency deed, it actually allows us under the definition of variable outgoings in clause 1 to virtually pay any bills, I mean it seems a bit carte blanche but we can make any refurbishment anything else we like out of it and in terms of clause 19 in the refurbishment fund, the Society’s discretion as to how it spends it refurbishment provision. So we can pay refurbishment out of the variable outgoings …Now, as I say, we've tried to be fair in this. We understand that the refurbishment fund is there for use and for refurbishment and really our view it’s major items." (p 24) "So yes, in terms of Schedule A, I think there has been some points which haven't been probably quite as clear as they could have been, and that's why as Vince (applicant) says later down the track we'll try to make it a bit more clear". (p 24).
Consideration
This matter was referred to the State Administrative Tribunal in terms of s 167(4)(b) SAT Act. The Tribunal is limited in the orders that it can make under the Retirement Villages Act by any applicable code or the residence contract (s 52 RV Act).
I am therefore limited to consider the application within the framework of the existing Residence Agreement for the Village.
I note that the applicant is not necessarily seeking an order that amounts to a variation of the Residence Agreement but rather for management processes relating to the interpretation of the Residence Agreement to be clarified and applied in a consistent manner.
The applicant is not specific in the orders he is seeking save to say that the wants management to "rectify the problem" with disbursements from the Refurbishment Fund. Having read the correspondence that has been exchanged over the past few years, I can understand the frustration experienced by the applicant (and other residents) as well as the respondent. Both parties have had to find a way to give practical and consistent content to an Agreement that is vague.
At the root of the confusion is (i) the way in which the Residence Agreement is formulated, (ii) the interpretation of the Residence Agreement and the attitude of the respondent that it can utilise the Refurbishment Fund at their absolute discretion and (iii) the absence of a coherent policy document which sets out the aim and purpose of the Refurbishment Fund.
I will address each of these issues separately:
(i) The Residence Agreement and Information Statement are vague in what the exact purpose is of respectively the Refurbishment Fund, Variable Outgoings and how expenditures from the funds are to be determined. There is no need for me to repeat the submissions regarding the confusion that have arisen in the interpretation and application of the Residence Agreement. Fact is that due to the vagueness of the Residence Agreement various interpretations and management practices have arisen which in turn has caused confusion and uncertainty.
The groundwork for the confusion is found in the Definitions of the Residence Agreement. The Definitions define what is meant by "Variable Outgoings" but is quiet when it comes to defining what is meant by "refurbishment". To confuse matters further clause 1.1 of the Residence Agreement that sets out the examples of variable outgoings includes as a "Variable Outgoing" the "refurbishing" of the Village. Only two items are excluded from the definition of "Variable Outgoings" namely "(n) rates and taxes charged to any resident; and (o) any other amount charged to any resident".
Clause 4 of the Residence Agreement sets out the way in which the Variable Outgoings are to be budged, reported and paid. No similar requirements exist in regard to the Refurbishment Fund. Clause 19(1) merely states that the fund can be used "at the discretion" of the respondent "for the purpose of refurbishing the Retirement Village" and the respondent may "in its absolute discretion from time to time draw money from the Refurbishment Fund for that purpose."
(ii) In light of the fact that the Residence Agreement, does not provide a clear distinction on how "variable outgoings" are to be distinguished from "refurbishment", it was a matter of time before conflict and confusion would arise.
As the applicant pointed out one would expect in laymen terms that "variable outgoings" would include the day to day operational and management costs of the Village, while "refurbishment" would refer to the long term maintenance and upkeeping of the buildings and/or the replacement of equipment, fixtures, and installations that impact upon the appearance of the Village. Unfortunately the Residence Agreement does not assist in this regard. Even if one refers to "refurbish" as defined by the Oxford Dictionary (Moore, B., (ed.) The Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary Fifth Edition, 2004) as "brighten up, restore and redecorate", the dividing line between "variable outgoing" and "refurbish" as per the Residence Agreement remains vague.
In light of the vagueness of the Residence Agreement the applicant and respondent have over time come to different interpretations as to what falls within the respective funds. The position of the respondent that it has the "absolute discretion" as to the use of the Refurbishment Fund may be legally correct but has contributed to frustration and confusion in the mind of the applicant. Had the respondent developed a Policy for the use of the Refurbishment Fund and adhered to it, some or all of the confusion may have been averted.
In noting the contents of the Financial Statements that were submitted by the respondent, the inconsistent application of expenditure from the Refurbishment Fund is apparent. For example, in the years ending 1998, 1999, 2001 and 2002 two main items are provided for in the Statement of Refurbishment Fund namely payment for the hot water service and payments for interior painting. In the year ending 2003 additional expenditure are reported for sewerage pump replacement, stove replacement and carpet replacement. In the year ending 2004 further items are added namely exterior door replacement and exterior painting. However Clause 1.1 of the Residence Agreement includes as a Variable Outgoing items such as "repair, renovation, replacement, refurbishment…" I can therefore understand the question from the applicant as to why the Refurbishment Fund is being used for stove replacement or carpet replacement if those expenditures seem to be within the domain of the Variable Outgoings.
I note there is no suggestion by the applicant that the refurbishment Fund had been improperly used. However in light of the fact that the applicant together with other residents contribute monthly to the Fund gives them an interest in understanding how the Fund would be utilised. The seemingly inconsistent interpretation by the respondent and its insistence that it can basically act virtually without any accountability to the applicant in regard to usage of the Fund, undermine the image of the respondent as a reliable, fair and transparent administrator.
(iii) It would seem from the extensive correspondence the parties had engaged in prior to the application being lodged, that the absence of a clear and consistent approach to the aim and purpose of the Refurbishment Fund is a major cause for conflict and confusion. The inconsistent approach has been perceived by the applicant as a "change in attitude" which it seems eventually contributed to the motion of no confidence. The principle of providing a "kitty" for the ongoing upkeeping of the Village is not in dispute. The applicant has in fact expressed his support for the contributions to the Refurbishment Fund to be increased in order to ensure the long term maintenance of the Village. His concern is that what he sees as short term operational expenditure is being funded from the Refurbishment Fund.
Mr Stephenson appearing for the respondent also commented during the hearing that "lots of time" have been "wasted in these issues and it would really be good to get a resolution." (p 27). In his written statement Mr Stephenson set out what amounts to the current policy of the respondent as – "Presently, the Society is intending to use the Refurbishment Fund for external painting, internal painting, the replacement of hot water systems, stoves and WC cisterns, and certain miscellaneous expenses…It is inevitable that some repair, renovation, replacement, refurbishment etc costs will have to be met from Variable Outgoings."
Finding
As I clarified above, my powers in terms of the Retirement Villages Act and the State Administrative Tribunal Act do not enable me to vary the Residence Agreement in order to remove the uncertainty that has arisen in the apparent overlap of the Variable Outgoings and Refurbishment Fund. The orders I can make may not be inconsistent with any applicable code or with the Residence Agreement (s 52 RV Act).
I note that there is no suggestion by the applicant of any wrongdoing on the part of the respondent. The respondent has even indicated his support for contributions to the Refurbishment Fund to be increased. Both parties have attempted over a long period of time in good faith to resolve the uncertainty but to no avail. They are now looking at SAT to assist them.
In order to rectify or remove the confusion and uncertainty that have arisen from the Residence Agreement it seems to me that two options are available. The first is for the Agreement to be varied. That falls outside the scope of the application.
The second option is for the respondent to pursue an open and transparent approach to the purpose and use of the Refurbishment Fund by adopting a Refurbishment Fund Policy. The Refurbishment Fund Policy could contain a brief statement to set out the objectives of the Fund whereafter the typical funding objectives as spelt out by Mr Stephenson during the hearing can be listed. The Policy could commit the respondent to similar requirements as contained in cl 4 of the Residence Agreement in regard to Variable Outgoings namely that an annual estimate of outgoings from the Refurbishment Account will be given to the applicant (and other residents), consultation will occur with residents and that all budgeted and actual expenditure and any variations to the said Policy will be tabled at the Annual General Meeting.
Order
In terms of s 52 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992 and s 73(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 I order as follows:
The respondent must within 90 days of the date of this order make available for discussion and input by the Residents a Refurbishment Fund Policy.
I certify that this and the preceding 16 pages comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
________________
B De Villiers
Member
0
0
4