MACLEAN and BEACON HILL VILLAGE INCORPORATED - [2005] WASAT 29

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: COMMERCIAL & CIVIL

CITATION: MACLEAN and BEACON HILL VILLAGE INCORPORATED [2005] WASAT 29

MEMBER: DR B DE VILLIERS (MEMBER)

HEARD: 6 MAY 2004

DELIVERED : 14 MARCH 2005

FILE NO/S: RT 2003 of 2003

BETWEEN: ELIZABETH MACLEAN
Applicant
AND
BEACON HILL VILLAGE INCORPORATED
Respondent

Catchwords:

Retirement villages - Residence contract - Management fee dispute

Legislation:

Fair Trading (Retirement Villages) Interim Code Regulation 2001
Fair Trading (Retirement Villages) Interim Code Regulation 2003
Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA), s 43(1)
Retirement Villages Act 1992 (WA), s 40, s 27, s 15, 3(1), s 56, s19
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 7, 167(4)(b), 11
State Administrative Tribunal Regulations 2004 (WA) (Reg 28)

Result:

1.The application to divide the management fee payable to SCC on a 50/50 basis between the trustee and residents is dismissed
2.The trustee and residents are ordered to convene within 30 days of the date of this order a Dispute Committee as provided for in cl 12.1 of the Residence Contract

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Self represented
Respondent: Mr A Kaminickas

Solicitors:

Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Scott & Kaminickas

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

DR B DE VILLIERS (MEMBER):

REASONS FOR DECISION

Application

The applicant, Mrs Elizabeth Maclean, is the proprietor and occupier of Unit 4 of the Beacon Hill Village ("the Village") which is situated at the corner of Lefroy Street and Livingston Street, Beaconsfield.
The application is expressed to have been made by Mrs MacLean "on behalf of Residents Committee". The submissions accompanying her application were signed by Mrs Maclean and three other persons identifying themselves as members of the "Residents Committee of the Village."
However, I regard Mrs MacLean as the "Applicant".
This is an application under the Retirement Villages Act 1992 ("the RV Act") and the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004.
The respondent, Beacon Hill Village Incorporated, is an incorporated body. The respondent established the Village, and has at all times had the control and management of the Village.
In some of the documents and reasons to be referred to below the respondent is referred to as "the Trustee" or "Owner".

Hearings

A Directions Hearing was held on 19 March 2004.
The Principal Hearing was held on 4 May 2004.
Neither party having elected to have the Tribunal constituted by a panel, the Tribunal therefore was pursuant to s 40 RV Act and with the consent of the parties, constituted by the then Referee sitting alone.

Delay

A decision in this matter has been deferred by the Referee pending the outcome of another application made to the Tribunal. However, although a decision in that matter was made on 31 August 2004, it is subject to an appeal to the District Court.
As it may be some time before any decision is made on the appeal, I consider it to be appropriate to proceed with this matter, rather than deferring my decision any longer.

Representation

The applicant represented herself.
The respondent, with the consent of the applicant, was represented at the Principal Hearing by its solicitor, Mr T Kaminickas.

Application transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal

The application was lodged in 2003 with the Retirement Villages Dispute Tribunal established in terms of s 27 RV Act.
The Tribunal invited submissions in response to the application. It received several written submissions from the applicant, other residents, the respondent and Southern Cross Care who is the managing agent for the Village. Correspondence was exchanged over an extended period of time and the parties were afforded the opportunity to comment on the other’s submissions. A principal hearing took place on 6 May 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 s 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.

The Village

The land the subject of the Village is the subject of five Certificates of Title which are in the name of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth. The land is leased to the Respondent.
Pursuant to s 15 RV Act, each of those 5 Certificates of Title has registered on it Memorial N⁰240369. The Memorial confirms that all 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 contains 28 self-contained residential units. There are no other facilities within the Village.
Each unit is occupied pursuant to a Licence Agreement entered into between the respondent (referred to in each such Licence as "the Trustee") and the respective occupants of the units.
Each Licence Agreement is part of a document described as a “Residence Contract” (herein after referred to as "Residence Contract"). In addition to containing the Licence Agreement, each Residence Contract incorporates an “Information statement for prospective resident”. That statement is in the form of a series of questions and answers.

Code

These Reasons contain references to "the Code". This is defined in the documents as a reference 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.
The 1998 Code version was the applicable version when the applicant entered into her Licence Agreement.

Order sought

The applicant has sought an Order pursuant to s 56 RV Act.
"That the entire cost of outsourcing management should not be borne by the Residents of the Village and that there should be at least a 50% contribution by the Owners."

Applicant’s submissions

On 19 April 2000, the applicant executed an offer to enter a Licence Agreement in relation to her Unit 4.
The offer was incorporated into her Residence Contract.
The applicant has submitted that:
"The purchase price of the units varied from $200,000 to $300,000 and these are insured by the owners for $120,000 to $150,000. Residents pay an exit fee (also known in the retirement village industry as a deferred management fee) of 25% of market value plus 1% per annum sinking fund (refurbishment). A Council of the Ageing document reads:
'The Deferred Management Fee compensates the management company for the management of the units. The sacrifice of capital is a way of providing management with a fee for managing the village but in a way that does not require "up front" payment by residents.' …
The residence contract states that the resident will pay all reasonable costs of management control and administration of the Village. As the contract only refers to reasonable costs, it appears that almost tripling the fee on a yearly basis is not a reasonable charge. Additionally, the contract provides that there are no services to be provided for which fees are payable.
Until 30 June 03, management was provided by the real estate agents who are also members of Beacon Hill Village Incorporated and have been responsible for the development of the site and the sale of the units. There has been no on site management.
From 1 July 2003, the management was outsourced to an aged care organisation, thereby almost tripling the fee on a yearly basis. For the period 1 July 2002 to 31 March 2003 the sum was $2600. The outsourcing is at a cost of $12300 in the 2003‑2004 year plus GST."
The "Information Statement" which was incorporated in the Residence Contract included:
"Services
9.Q. What services will be provided for the fees payable?
A. Nil
10.Q. What additional or optional services are provided and at what cost?
A. Nil
Existing service contract
11.Q. Is there a service contract already in existing (sic) which will bind the resident. How can the service contract be varied or cancelled?
A. No
Village Management
15. Q. What are the qualifications and experience of the retirement village’s senior management?
A.Various, Description can be provided on request.
However, cl 4.3 of the Residence Contract provides:-
"Services Provided
All residents are entitled to use and have the benefit of the following services, the costs of which are included in the Operating Costs:
(a)Security lighting;
(b)Administration and management of the village;
(c)Gardening and general maintenance; and
(d)Use of Beaconsfield Parish Centre as directed by the Parish priest."
Operating Costs
Clause 1.1 of the Residence Contract defines "Operating Costs" to include all rates, taxes, charges, assessments, duties, impositions and fees, insurance premiums, water, gas and similar assessments and charges, all repair, maintenance and renovation costs and other expenses, including
"(g) all reasonable costs (inclusive of salaries, wages, superannuation and pension payments) of management control and administration of the village”
Clause 4.1 of the Residence Contract requires the applicant (as the "Resident") to:-
"punctually pay to the Trustee the Resident's proportion of the Operating Costs which proportion is calculated by the Trustee from time to time on the basis for apportionment specified in Item 6 of Schedule 1, subject to the following conditions:
(a)The Trustee's determination of the proportion attributable to each Self Contained Unit must be equal for units of a particular type as designated by the Trustee.
(b)During the First Licence Year, the Resident must pay only the sum in the manner specified in item 6 of Schedule 1 for the Operating Costs.
(c)At the expiry of each Licence Year (or as soon as practicable after that date), the Trustee must:
·notify the Resident in writing of the amount of the Resident's proportion of the Operating Costs estimated for the immediately succeeding Licence Year; and
·provide the Resident with brief details of the estimated aggregate Operating Costs for the immediately succeeding year including, but not limited to, paragraph (g) of the definition of Operating Costs.
But the Trustee may at anytime during December in any Licence Year, by written notice to the Resident, increase or decrease the Resident's proportion of the Operating Costs. On and from the 1^st day of January of the Licence Year in which the notice is given the Resident must commence to pay the Resident's proportion of the Operating Costs as amended".
However, although Item 6 of Sch 1 to the Residence Contract is headed:
"Payment on account of Resident's proportion of Operating Costs of the Retirement Village during the First License Year,"
no proportion or other figure or figures appear under that heading.
The Trustee's covenants under cl 7 of the Residence Contract include an undertaking:
"(c) to pay all outgoings, costs and expenses of the Village which are not the direct responsibility of the Resident under this Licence".
Cl 12.1 of the Residence Contract provides for the establishment of a Disputes Committee, in the following terms:
"The Trustee and the residents of the Village must (if they have not done so already), convene a village disputes resolution committee ('Disputes Committee') in accordance with Clause 6.1 of the Code. The Disputes Committee has the function of hearing and mediating disputes that may arise from time to time between residents of the Village (including the Resident) and the Trustee, and also between the Resident and other residents of the Village. The Disputes Committee must comprise 3 members being:
(a)a person appointed by the majority of the Village residents;
(b)a person appointed by the Trustee; and
(c)an independent person who is not a Village resident or an employee or associate of the Trustee, appointed jointly by the Trustee and the residents of the Village.
The Trustee and the residents of the Village, may by unanimous decision, extend the functions of the Disputes Committee where necessary, to assist in the reasonable management and administration of matters concerning the Village".
Cl 2.3 of the Residence Contract entitles a Resident or the Respondent, separately or jointly, to refer a dispute to the Disputes Committee and cl 12.4 of the Residence Contract requires the Disputes Committee to promptly hear disputes referred to it and to attempt by mediation to resolve the dispute.
Clause 12.5 of the Residence Contract specifies that if the Disputes Committee determines that a dispute is beyond its competence, it must decline to hear the matter and must advise the applicant to refer the dispute to the Ministry of Fair Trading or to this Tribunal.

Both the 1998 Code and the 2001 Code provide in Division 1, [1.2](3) that:
"If a contract, agreement or arrangement made or entered into prior to this Code becoming effective is silent on a matter with which the Code deals, the provisions of the Code apply."
The 2003 Code provides, in Division 1, Para 1.3 and 1.4
"The general principles guiding all those involved in the provision of retirement villages and related services are that-
(a)the well-being and interests of residents, together with the rights of administrating bodies, must be given due consideration;
(b)the freedom of decision and action of each resident must be restricted as little as possible and must be recognised in the relationship between a resident and the administering body of a retirement village;
(c)the relationship of residents with their family and past and present communities is important and must be recognised, taking into account the cultural, religious and linguistic background of each resident; and
(d)residents must be treated fairly and not subject to abuse or exploitation.
1.4 Objectives of the Code
"The objectives of the Code are to
(a) promote fair trading practices in the provision of retirement villages and related services by setting out the rights and obligations of residents and administrating bodies in retirement villages;
(b) encourage fairness in the promotion, sale or grant of rights in, and operation of, retirement villages;
(c) require the disclosure of all relevant information to a person who is considering entering a particular retirement village;
(d) require contracts for the occupation of residential premises and for the provision of amenities and services in a retirement village to contain full details of the administering body;
(e) facilitate consultation between the administering body and the residents on the management of a retirement village; and
(f) establish appropriate mechanisms for the resolution of any dispute in a retirement village between the residents and the administering body or between residents.
Paragraph 4.6 of the 1998 Code required a residence contract to specify when maintenance fees were to be paid, what services would be provided for those fees and
"the recurrent charges for the village’s current financial year and the basis for future determination of those changes."
Clause 3.2 of the 1998 Code included:
"An administering body must ensure that the following information, is given, in writing, to a resident proposing to enter into a service contract, or any other contract for the provision of facilities, with the administering body at least 5 working days before that person enters into the contract:
(a) the costs payable under the contract, including all recurrent charges and fees;
(b) details of the services or facilities to be provided under the contract;…”
Paragraph 3.2 of the 2003 Code is on similar, but not identical terms.

Respondent submissions

The respondent made several submissions in response to the application. The following are extracts from the submissions:
"Generally, all claims by the residents are incorrect or at best a distortion of facts."
"Until 2003 the management of the Village was conducted by Fremantle Business Brokers on a semi professional basis only. The principal of that firm is also a member of the Village. Its charges were kept artificially low because whilst the Village was being developed and many units unoccupied a budget deficit was experienced…. To say that the management fee has tripled is therefore misleading. The appointment of Southern Cross Care (part of Southern Cross Homes) now provides management of the highest professional standards available."
"The new management fee of $13 000 result in accounting and auditing fees being eliminated which cost $2,970.00 in the June 2003 year. Overall the increase per resident in the operating expenses from 02/03 to 04/04 is in the order of $5.00 per week, rising in an average from $40.00 to $45.00 per week.
"The Residence Contract itself provides for the resident to pay all the operating expenses of the Village. The tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to vary the terms of the Residence Contract by imposing part of the expense upon the Village operators and therefore cannot adjudicate upon this matter."
"The Residence Contract also provides for a dispute resolution mechanism which has not been engaged in respect to this particular issue. It should therefore be referred to this process for mediation before referral to the Tribunal."

Relevant provisions of the RV Act

Section 19 RV Act provides
"(1) A service contract may be enforced against the administrating body, for the time being, of the retirement village.
(2) Every term relating to the provision of a service to a resident under a service contract binds a resident and each successor in title of the resident until the term is varied or cancelled by the Tribunal under this Act"
Section 3(1) RV Act includes the following in its definition of a "service contract":
"a contract between an administrating body… of a retirement village and a resident for the provision to the resident of…
(d)administrative and management services;
(e)maintenance and repair services;
(f)recreation services, or
(g)any other services"
Section 56 RV Act includes;
"(1) Where-
(e)a party to a service contract proposes a variation or cancellation in relation to any of the terms of a service contract…, or
(f)a dispute arises between the parties to a service contract, either party may make an application in relation to the matter to the Tribunal”
(4) The Tribunal may…order
(a)specific performance of the service contract;
(b)the payment of a sum of money,
(c)and make such other orders as the Tribunal considers appropriate…"

Considerations

In the course of the written and oral submissions made in the application, the applicant and other residents raised several queries, made allegations and expressed frustrations in regard to the running of general affairs of the Village. These comments relate amongst others to some operational issues, maintenance of the Village, the aim and purpose of the “sinking fund”, the lack of a dispute resolution committee, self-management of the Village and other issues. It is not within the ambit of the order sought for the Tribunal to express a view or to make a finding in regard to each of the issues raised. Suffice to say that retirement villages can only function properly if there is a close relationship between the respective parties – in particular between the residents, owners/trustees and managers of a village. Most if not all of the issues that were raised in the correspondence and during the hearing could have been dealt with if proper channels of communication existed whereby residents could raise queries and receive proper and accurate information and responses.

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 will now turn to specific issues that relate to the order sought by the applicant.
The main issues of relevance to the order sought by the applicant relate to –
(i) the definition of "operating" costs and in particular whether the outsourcing of a management contract can be included in the definition;
(ii) if the additional cost brought about by the outsourcing of the management contract to Southern Cross Care ("SCC") is "reasonable";
(iii) if the Tribunal can order that a percentage of costs incurred by the appointment of SCC can be allocated to the respondent; and
(iv) if a dispute resolution committee has been established, and if not if such a committee is only established when a conflict arises or whether it is intended to be a permanent and ongoing committee.
I will address each of these questions in the same order as above.
(i) The legal obligations of the parties are set out in the RV Act, the Code and the Residence Contract. In terms of s 13(2) RV Act the following Information Statement for Prospective Resident was provided to the applicant of the time of her signing the offer. In the Information Statement several questions and answers deal with fees and charges for example: the answer to question 2 which deals with recurrent fees and the components of the maintenance fee is that "charges are in proportion of the operating costs of the village as described in the licence agreement. An annual budget will be drawn up." The answer to question 7 which deals with the arrangements to offer residents input into the administration of the village is that "resident input will be provided by the establishment of a residents committee which will have access to the trustee." The answer to question 11 which deals with the service contract, is that there is no existing contract.
The Residence Contract defines "operating costs" (cl 1) as "that proportion of all outgoings, costs and expenses of the Trustee now and after the date of execution of this Licence properly and reasonably assessed, charged and chargeable, paid or payable or otherwise incurred for the maintenance, management and operation of the Village including but not limited to:…(g) all reasonable costs (inclusive of salaries, wages, superannuation and pension payments) of management control and administration of the Village." (My emphasis)
Clause 4.1 of the Residence Contract determines that "the Resident must… punctually pay to the Trustee the Resident's proportion of the Operating Costs which proportion is calculated by the Trustee from time to time…."
Clause 4.3 of the Residence Contract determines that "All residents are entitled to use and have the benefit of the following services the costs of which are included in the Operating Costs:…(b) administration and management of village". (My emphasis)
Clause 7.1(c) of the Residence Contract places the Respondent under an obligation "to pay all outgoings, costs and expenses of the Village which are not the direct responsibility of the resident under this Licence". (My emphasis)
The applicant's contention is that retaining a management agent is a cost to which the respondent has to contribute or in the alternative it is a cost that falls outside the normal understanding of "operational costs" and should therefore be born in full by the respondent.
The respondent's contention is that the Residence Contract leaves no doubt that the maintenance of the village, including the appointment of a managing body, falls within the definition of "operational costs". The respondent also contends that operational costs are for the sole account of the residents and unless the Residence Contract is varied, there is no basis upon which I can make an order to the effect that the respondent has to contribute to the management fee levied by SCC.
I do not find any basis to conclude otherwise than suggested by the respondent namely that the appointment of SCC and the costs associated therewith is for the account of the residents to be calculated on the basis as set out in the Residence Contract. The Residence Contract makes it clear in the definition of "operating costs" (cl 1), the payment of proportions of operating costs (cl 4.1) and services provided (cl 4.3) that the administration and management of the Village forms part of "operating costs" and therefore such costs are for the account of the residents.
(ii) The question if the cost for retaining SCC is "reasonable" as required by the Residence Contract in the definition of "operating costs", is open to different perspectives. This is an issue that should best be dealt with by the residents committee and respondent and if necessary for consideration of the Dispute Committee. While it is understandable that residents want to undertake as much as possible of the duties (e.g. bookkeeping, general maintenance, gardening) themselves, the respondent also has an obligation to current and future residents to ensure that the affairs of the Village are managed in a professional and sustainable way.
According to the submissions made the management of the Village initially was undertaken by Fremantle Business Brokers whose principal is also a member of the Village. In June 2003 the respondent decided that due to the fact that additional expertise was required to manage the Village on an ongoing basis, an external managing agency had to be appointed. The respondent engaged SCC to manage the Village on behalf of the respondent and residents.
In the Proposal to Manage Beacon Hill Village, SCC offers to "provide a comprehensive, accountable management service to the residents of the village and the owners." The proposal contains several undertakings of what type of services will be provided by SCC as well as the outline of management fees for 2003/4, 2004/5 and 2005/6. I have not been provided with the actual management agreement concluded between the Respondent and SCC but I assume that it sets out formally the type of services that SCC would render.
Although SCC is not a party to the application, the General Manager Corporate Services Kevin Brown made a submission to the Tribunal on 11 May 2004. In the submission he states that SCC was requested by the respondent to take on the management of the Village as they (respondent) "realised that they did not have the experience or knowledge to effectively manage a retirement village." According to the submission SCC is very experienced in these matters and manages 8 other similar villages of varying size. According to Mr Brown, SCC has in fact under-budgeted for its management responsibilities in light of the fact that one of their village coordinators visits the Village "once per week" and there are "many maintenance issues" to address. He concludes to note that there is frequent interaction between SCC and residents. He also provided a list of activities that SCC had been engaged it to address management issues in the Village.
I am not called upon to make a decision as to the effectiveness or professionalism of SCC in providing their services. It is a matter for the respondent, residents and SCC to discuss and if disputes arise for appropriate relief to be sought. I refer in this regard to the provisions of s 56 RV Act.
It is unfortunately not clear if the respondent had invited tenders or had approached other potential management bodies such as strata management companies to obtain quotes for the services. An inclusive tender process in consultation with the residents committee would have probably have prevented the dispute from arising.
However, from the submissions it does not seem unreasonable for the respondents to have appointed an external manager and in particular a non-profit organisation such as SCC that apparently has wide experience in the management of similar villages. It would also not seem excessive for SCC to deliver the services set out in Proposal to Manage Beacon Hill Village for an amount of $12 800 (2003/4) per annum.
(iii) The question if I can order the trustee to contribute to the annual operation costs and in particular to the management fee charged by SCC is answered by the terms of the Residence Contract. I do not find any provision of the Residence Contract or the Retirement Villages Act that enables me to make such an order. Unless the Residence Contract is varied, the residents are solely responsible for the payment of operational costs, including those charged by SCC as management agent.
(iv) In regard to the establishment of a Disputes Committee the Residence Contract is unequivocal that the "Trustee and residents of the Village must convene a village disputes resolution committee… (cl 12.1. My emphasis). The Disputes Resolution Committee ("Committee") is appointed for one year (cl 12.2) and it is responsible to hear disputes and mediate where possible.
The establishment the Committee is not at the discretion of the respondent and it is a permanent, ongoing committee. It seems from the submissions as if the respondent had been reluctant to convene the Committee or to assist in its effective functioning. I am of the view that much of the frustrations that have been expressed by the applicant and other residents at matters arising from the management of the village, could have been addressed to their satisfaction had a properly constituted Committee been established.

Findings

I make the following findings:
(i) There is no basis for the Tribunal to order the respondents to make a 50 per cent contribution towards the costs of the SCC management agreement. In terms of s 52 RV Act I am bound by the terms of the Residence Contract and it does not allow for any such division of costs between the residents and respondents.
(ii) It does not appear that the management fee is unreasonable if account is taken of the nature and type of services rendered by SCC. According to the submission made by the respondent on 11 September 2003 the average increase per resident in operating expenses amounts to approximately $5 per week. While it is understood that some residents may experience financial hardship, account must also be taken that living and maintenance costs do increase and that it is in the long term interest of all residents for the Village to be managed in a professional manner. I am not in a position to make a determination as to the quality of services provided by SCC as it was not the subject of the application. However I note in the transcript of proceedings that the legal representative of the respondent commented during the hearing "if there's a problem with Southern Cross Care, well maybe that should be looked at and if there's a genuine concern something should be done about it." This is perhaps an invitation for the applicants to take up with SCC and the respondent.
(iii) The respondent and residents are obliged to establish a permanent and ongoing Dispute Resolution Committee to deal with disputes that may arise from time to time in the village. The establishment of the Committee is not at the discretion of any of the parties but an obligation that arises from the Residence Contract.

Orders

In terms of s 52 of the Retirement Villages Act 1992 and s 73 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, I order as follows:

The application to divide the management fee payable to SCC on a 50/50 basis between the trustee and residents is dismissed.
The trustee and residents are ordered to convene within 30 days of the date of this order a Dispute Committee as provided for in cl 12.1 of the Residence Contract.

I certify that this and the preceding 19 pages comprise the reasons for decision of the Tribunal.

_____________________
B De Villiers

Member