2024 My Life My Village - NZ's Best Villages & Care + RVResidents Members Magazine

Luxury holidays that are one of a kind.

A true luxury holiday can’t be contained to a package. You deserve a bespoke holiday crafted by an expert travel adviser that ticks every box, just for you.

From the President’s Desk

It is such a privilege to lead RVResidents. Thousands of hours are expended by many, many volunteers across the country, for which our Association is greatly appreciative. We took a bold step in 2022 and contracted the services of Nigel Matthews as Chief Executive, and of course his team. We could never have achieved the progress with the review of the Retirement Villages Act 2003 without their expertise and the persistence of our National Executive and Regional Coordinators. August 2022, Nigel, Peter Carr and myself were

commenced with any sort of momentum. The priority areas being Moving In, Living In and Moving Out of a retirement village. Since that meeting, there has been a lot of media attention regarding the review.

I have been fortunate to present at over 150 Villages (some 7,000 residents) across NZ explaining what RVResidents wants to see with the review of the current Act. Not one person from any of these presentations have said to me that we are wasting our time.

We cover some of the key areas in the magazine. An insightful comment came from a resident in a village in Invercargill recently. “We all know that before we are allowed to move into a Villa in a Village, we are required to pay the full amount on day one. That being the case, why can’t we receive the ‘pay back’ on the day we vacate the Villa?”

RVResident’s is simply asking for Fairness and Consumer Protection with this review - nothing more nothing less, and our discussions with the will continue with the review of the Act. The voice for change is loud. The Retirement Commission, Consumer NZ, Aged Concern, Grey Power,

Women, Positive Ageing and many others have voiced the need for this review.

All we need is your continued support and voice.

Brian Peat President

The Elephant in the Room

We’re delighted to be able to bring this latest magazine to our members and readers. While we have many exciting and positive things happening around the country involving Retirement Village Residents - and we cover some of them - the big topic on many people’s minds for 2024 is the legislative review for retirement villages. What does it all mean for those looking at moving into a village or for the 50,000 people that already call their village ‘home’?

maybe your favourite recipe or cryptic crossword will get more attention in the next magazine. 2024 is a year when decisions will be made, laws prepared, and Bills potentially ‘heard’ - which we hope will have a positive impact on consumer protection for residents, both current and new to retirement village life.

And, if you’re interested to hear more (but maybe not about the top 5 recipes using mung beans) then feel free to visit www.rvr.org.nz

Nigel Matthews Chief Executive

• Did someone say review? (pg 2)

• villages can repay (pg 4)

• Residents committee or social club (pg 6)

• Will law changes apply to ALL residents? (pg 9)

• To share… or not to share – that is the question (pg 10)

• Best practice guide & score sheet (pg 12)

• Is the grass greener overseas? (pg 14)

Did someone say review?

They say ‘good things take time’… well it’s been a good long 3 years since the Retirement Commission launched a White Paper back in 2020 asking for public comment on the Retirement Villages legislation.

In our 2023 Edition of My Life My Village we looked back at the progress that had been made between 2019 - 2022 [https://issuu.com/nzbest/docs/my_ village_my_life_mag_22.02.23_issuu]

Another year on and (at the time of this issue going to print) we now have legislators seeking public comment on a range of proposals for amending the current Retirement Villages Act 2003 and associated Code and Regulations.

So, when did this start to get real?

In August 2023, Te Tuapapa Kura Kainga - Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MHUD) released a Discussion Document for public consultation. It was 132 pages and came with a 81 page Cost

it was extremely comprehensive, RVResidents were conscious that to many in retirement villages (average age 81) it might be a little too daunting for some - well, many. To ensure a better response was

down to 6 pages, keeping questions that were only relevant to existing residents - but still showing comment further.

50,000 were funded and distributed by RVResidents and local RVResident members at the start of September 2023.

A 1-3% response rate for a direct mail piece is considered good. So anything from 500 - 1500 would have been reasonable. When a similar exercise was undertaken with the 2021 White Paper (the catalyst for the review) over 1900 paper questionnaires were received. That paper had 5 questions. This latest one has 42.

Within 4 weeks over 4500 completed questionnaires had come in, and at the time of presenting our submission to MHUD on 14th November, more than 10,630 questionnaires had been received from 11,300+ respondents (counting couples). Over 1000 volunteers hours of collation alone! Again, our thanks to all those that took the time to respond, assist others, or help tally the results. An unbelievable result!

The results include;

• 97% said the responsibility for repairs and maintenance should be the operators

• 90% said this change should apply to existing ORA’s

• 81% agreed there should be a new dispute resolution scheme with 12% not sure

• 96% stated operators should have to repay

period, with the largest group 58% saying it should be within 28 days of exit, and 31% with 3 months

• exit and facilities fees etc.) should stop accruing or stop being deducted on exit

• 80% said operators should stop charging weekly fees when a unit is vacated, and 1% disagreed.

• 88% believe all sales and transfers of retirement village units have the same protections as the Real Estate Agents Act of 2008.

Note: RVResidents would advocate that some of the above should only apply to the same % of capital shared with residents.

To view the total results from all responses received, visit www.rvr.org.nz/government-review

New Government - now what?

With a new National led government many will be asking ‘what happens now’? When we asked all the main political parties about their positions in May 2023 National made it clear that they supported a fullsome review of the legislation. While it may be early 2024 before more is said about the review, MHUD is currently continuing with progressing the review and taking onboard the thousands of submissions that were presented to them as part of the Discussion Document.

As far as when any legislation might be accepted, piece of legislation would need to go through the

where the public will be able to make submissions on the Bill. The Bill would then need to pass a second, and then a third reading, to become law. While there is no set timeframe for this to happen, we can look to other previous pieces of legislation that have got to this stage and look at how long it has taken from here. General estimates sit at 12-18 months, putting us in 2025 for an actual law change - but this is up to the government.

Our (past) RVR Government Liaison, Peter Carr spoke to Chris Luxon at a ’National’ presentation held at Lauriston Park Retirement Village leading up to the election. The last question posed by Peter, was will the National party support the continuance of the legislative review if there is a change of government. Mr Luxon replied “Yes, and we’ll do it faster”. Peter had earlier posed that same question to Winston Peters when he was presenting to 400+ people at the Cambridge Town Hall, to which Mr Peters also said ‘Yes’.

Note: At time of going to print with the magazine a

A A fullsome review of the Retirement Villages Act, associated Code and regulations. –

B A review of perceived unfair ORA clauses by the Commerce Commission. –

C Addressing consumer protection for all retirement village residents. –

In our Dec 2021 Members Issue we discussed the 5 top reasons for implementing a 28 day buyback. These included the fact that 6 months has been the norm in some Australian states for more than 20 years, and this is now proving too long for many residents.

We also said that we believe an ORA is akin to a rental bond which legally must be returned within 23 working days - and changing this ONE point addresses a multitude of other issues that rest unfairly on the exiting resident - such as ongoing weekly fees, tidied up promptly.

In the August 2023 Discussion Document, point 214 revealed MHUD’s leaning; 214. A longer repayment timeframe such as 18 months or two years would better support

result in some former residents waiting a long time to receive their capital sum repayment. On balance, we consider a 12-month timeframe would best balance the interests of residents and operators. However, we seek your feedback on what period would be most appropriate.

RVResidents has liaised with a range of professionals about unfairness in the licensing model used by most operators. One such professional who presented at our ’New Horizons’ workshop for Exec and Regional Coordinators is Janine Starks.

Janine is a former Investment Banker and regular commentator on the television, radio, and in the press. She writes regular articles, some of which are on www.moneytips.nz

She has successfully championed the cause for better consumer protection by banks and advocating for people losing thousands to clever phone and web scams that banks could actually stop.

a retirement village tick, and reveals the ability for operators to fund a 28 day buyback. While there will be those with a contrary view, RVResidents believe

allowing for any exemptions or ‘force majeure’ events. While it is acknowledged that residents, by and large,

enjoy the lifestyle afforded by this model, Janine and insolvency stand up to public scrutiny. Here’s a glimpse into some of her commentary.

buy-back

It is unconscionable that operators make an average of $1 million revenue over the 8-year tenure of a resident living in a village unit (based on a $600,000 purchase price), but are refusing to support legislation to require a buy-back of the unit in a mandated time frame.

There is a gap in time, between the 28-day repayment to families and the operator relicensing the unit. That gap costs money (calculated at $13,535), because it’s a form of bridging-loan which shareholders must fund. It is inconceivable they would not fund these costs, to capture the capital gains.

Successive governments appear to have granted a social license to operators to remove capital gains from contracts. The current law does not prevent operators exercising excessive market power over consumers through their pricing structure. While price gouging is not illegal, current framework

prevent it. Under the current village oligopoly model, a 28-day buy-back offers a small legislative rebalance.

Many industry participants came from property development and construction backgrounds, with little access to long-term capital. This necessitated creative, but punitive pricing structures. Residents funded new developments by providing interest free loans without any ownership rights. They paid fees of 20-30% of their unit-value to use village facilities and agreed to contracts which gave away all capital gains. There are very few alternative occupancy models in New Zealand.

The capital structure of operators is their choice and we should not be drawn into making a decision on buy-backs based on how they choose to structure their balance sheets with regard to debt vs capital. Economic fairness should be the basis of the decision.

extraordinary event where operators had to alter their business plans (build rate) and change the ratio between capital and debt. They have raised

more capital from shareholders via new share issues, reduced their debt levels as demanded by banks and pulled back their build rate as a commercial consequence. These factors all require constant risk management. Claiming buy-backs cannot be funded by shareholders or banks is disingenuous when many other unforeseen events alter how capital and debt are applied.

• outcome for residents and their families. Operators make an average of $1,014,000 revenue over the 8-year tenure of a resident living in a village (based on a $600,000 purchase price) but are refusing to pay-back the license fee less deferred management fee ($450,000) owed to a family in a mandated time frame.

• (on a $600,000 unit). This represents 1.3% of revenue or 3% of the capital gain component ($510,000 out of £1,014,000 is capital gain). The cost is less than 3% of capital gains, leaving operators with 97%. Even if the gains modelled by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development were halved, operators would still receive 95 percent, after funding costs.

• An exemptions regime should deal with they are unable to repay

• Capital gains and losses cannot be apportioned This is due to the mathematical requirement to include probability in a pricing structure to make it accurate. If an operator takes

any level of capital gains, all market losses will need to accrue to the operator.

• redundant for most families and should not be implemented. Given 95% of units sell within 12 months, the vast majority of families will see no imbalance of power between operators and families.

• A 6-month buy-back is unfair to residents and should not be implemented as most families will still carry higher costs than operators. Only 23% of families will receive a buy-back (1118 families annually), but will still suffer a use-of-money loss, averaging $18,000 (loss of 8% for 6-months on within 9 months and 95% in 12 months, their costs only amount to $3,150 per unit, for a 6-month buyback.

• place a disproportionate cost on residents. These options look even worse under the structure of a model which takes all capital gains, when a market price is paid for the unit.

For Janine’s full report in our submission, visit: www.rvr.org.nz/resources

1 20% development margin on the new build $120,000

2 $150,000

3 85% Capital Gain* $510,000

4 $234,000

*8% p.a. compounded gain as per Martin Jenkins Model

**RBNZ base rate 4.24% compounded, no risk margin

Operators have earned $4.9 billion over 8 years, in revenue on the 4862 units which vacate annually due to resident deaths and exits. Of this, is tax-free capital gains. Residents are asking the industry to fund $65 million from this to pay for a 28-day buy-back.

Residents committee or social club – Potaytoe, Potartoe?

If you’re wondering whether your village needs a residents committee, or a social committee, a hybrid or both then perhaps it might help to understand the differences.

A residents committee is a group of residents who are elected to represent the interests of all residents in a retirement village. They might meet regularly with the village management to discuss issues that affect residents, and they can make recommendations on how to improve the village.

rules and regulations, or they might suggest new amenities or services. Residents committees can also play a role in resolving disputes between residents or between residents and the management.

Resident Committees tend to be structured. They will have a constitution or guidelines, keep minutes, and are enabled under the Code of Practice ie. A group of residents have a legal right to form a residents committee in their village.

A social committee, on the other hand, is a group of residents who organize social activities for the village. They might plan events like potluck dinners, game nights, or outings. They also might help to organise volunteer opportunities for residents. Social committees can help to create a sense of community and belonging in a retirement village. They can also provide opportunities for residents to socialise and stay active.

A village can have one, or both, or a hybrid of the two. The most common is a combination - a residents committee that initiates social activities on behalf of the village.

The main difference between a residents committee and a social committee is that a residents committee is responsible for representing the interests of all residents, while a social committee is responsible for organising social activities.

If you’re thinking of setting up one, then RVResidents (in conjunction with the Retirement Commission) have a great booklet that can help. Visit www.rvr.org.nz or contact us on 0800 787 699.

How Residents’ Committees Work Within a Village

Residents Committees are formed by residents of the retirement village, often through a democratic election process as is the case at Bert Sutcliffe Village in Birkenhead.

Members are typically volunteers who want to participate actively in the community.

The committee represents the collective voice of the residents to the retirement village management and owners. They often address issues related to facilities, services, and policies that affect residents and serve as a communication channel between residents and management/owners by gathering input and feedback from residents.

Effective collaboration between the Residents Committee and retirement village management is crucial for addressing residents’ concerns and ensuring a harmonious living environment. One person comments, “At Bert Sutcliffe, we are lucky to have an interested and proactive Manager who works well with our Residents’ Committee. Her door is always open and she is invited to the last half hour of the bimonthly meetings where any concerns are

maintenance and safety can be discussed.”

Residents’ Committees may be able to help in resolving disputes or concerns that residents have with the retirement village management or services. However, the complainant is usually encouraged to

an informal chat. If this is not the case, the complaint can be discussed at a committee meeting and the committee may decide to approach the Manager to support the complainant and, in this way, the committee representative can act as a mediator and help work towards a solution and thereby avoid

Some committees organise social events and activities within the retirement village to promote community engagement and a sense of belonging among residents. “At our village, we have an Events Coordinator who organises the social aspects for the Village though the Residents Committee is sometimes called on to help out with bigger events if necessary.”

From Resident Chairs

“Our Manager is frequently invited to attend the bi-monthly meetings of Independent Residents and has welcomed our suggestions to invite other staff with responsibilities. Our Facilities Manager has attended two meetings this year and we are looking forward to hearing about the role of the staff with Health and Safety responsibilities this month. Her door is always open but the demands of the Hospital busy schedule for her. Working with the Facilities and residents equally.”

“Personally, I wonder about the separation between Resident and Independent resident. This would appear to suggest the resident in Care has no advocate. Yet, if there is one thing we all need to be aware of it is the nature and state of Hospital and Care facilities. Many of us are likely to be using them and we all want quality staff and quality facilities. Transition from independence to dependency requires good communication and good understanding of the process. The Resident’s Committee is a group ideally suited to explore these issues and our Village Manager has agreed to address them.”

“We feel the committee and management both work towards the same goal which is the well-being of all who live and work in the Village, staff and residents

“At our village we have a Managing Residents Committee, a Social Committee and a Bar Committee. The Residents committee became incorporated in 2014 which allowed it to hold a bar licence and run a bar. This meant all operating funds would be managed by the Bar committee which in liaison with the Social committee then channels

and on request pays for equipment not funded by the owner eg music stands, library books etc. The 3 committees are autonomous but work closely together. Infact, some residents are on 2 or all 3 committees. This makes communication easy and we support each other and work very well together. As Chair, I have found our operator and present Manager very supportive - as demonstrated during and after the cyclone. They communicate well. Gone are the days when residents felt they couldn’t know something”, says Chris Wargent, resident at Parklane.

Gerald Rawson, a resident at Ryman’s Malvina Major Retirement Village says;

“The catalyst for our Residents Committee coming together was the arrival, virtually en-mass, of 60 or so new entrants in 2019. We comprised 40% or so of the village’s independent residents. Overall, we were a younger cohort.

Res.

Below: Gerald Rawson

Res.

Many of us saw a place for a committee though sensed that support was perhaps at best 50/50. residents and to research what other villages did. Six months on we called a special residents meeting at which a motion to form a committee was carried by a margin of seven votes out of ninety.

Village management were neutral in this regard. They didn’t oppose though also didn’t promote. Head

fully supported us with the use of facilities including photocopying, and on one occasion with air fares for an out-of-town guest speaker. The operator’s Wellington regional manager helpfully facilitated our

no barriers to our Legislative Review meetings.

Right: Chris Wargent

Chair, Parklane Village

Chair, Malvina Major Village

Terms of Reference

The committee’s foundation Terms of Reference described our role in terms of assisting in the optimal development of the villages physical and social environment and at all times working constructively and in good will with management.

management, primarily as a voice for residents [2] .

to actively promoting the physical and mental wellbeing and the independence of the villages independent and terms of how roles and functions have evolved.

Some of the committees early work included;

• Protocols around staff and contractor access to our apartments including unannounced walk-ins.

• residents.

•

• Out of hours ambulance access. Ambulance staff had previously needed to jump fences and knock on apartment doors for access and direction.

• safety matters. The outcomes include agreement by the council to seek a speed reduction from 50 km/h to 30km/h past the village, electronic speed alert signs for each lane, a protected crossing (i.e., a centre island with railings), and a designated parking bay for goods service vehicles (including for emergency services). Separately through the Regional Council we have secured an additional bus stop shelter. Alongside these legacy and systemic matters, the committee meets monthly; normally with the manager in attendance for part.

Observations

Gerald notes the following;

• Increasing average ages (and higher entry age thresholds) potentially make traditional

• The very large village operators seem to very tightly centrally manage. Their village roles, as here, are supervisory and administrative rather than management, which can create challenges.

• This raises an opportunity for committees, that operations, and can say things to operator managers can’t.

• Looking at other villages, I sense that those without paid activities programme staff seem to have more vibrant committees; especially when their activities roles as seen as facilitating rather than provision.

With 22 locally owned family branches nationwide and a great range of vehicles, RaD Car Hire will get you on the road for your next adventure.

• I think that the Retirement Commissions 2023 Annual Investigation Report makes good points re the expectations that village promotions unnecessarily or unintentionally create. That is especially around unrealistic expectations of wrap-around support.

I think that committees have a key role in helping ensure that these ‘independent’ years are more, rather than less – including by pushing back on rather than care living.

[1] The village operator had covered our accommodation costs, at a generous level, for that period.

[2] As the village had paid activities co-ordinators and was moving to paid bar staff there was no need for a social committee.

Will law changes apply to ALL residents?

It’s the big question being asked by residents across the country. If you’re in a village and wanting change then you’ll be wondering whether those changes might into a village then the question is do you move in now and accept that you might miss out on new conditions… or do you wait until 2025 and any new laws that might be introduced?

make the step say ‘I wish I’d done it sooner’ - but if the village you’re thinking about moving into in 2024 does NOT share capital gain or return your money back promptly when you exit, then you might want to hold off or think again.”

That’s the advice of President, Brian Peat of the Retirement Village Residents Association. It comes on the back of the legislative review currently underway by Te T-uapapa Kura Kainga Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.

In late 2022 MHUD launched its terms of reference for a full review of the Retirement Villages Act and associated code and regulations.

One of the key issues around the legislative review is whether or not the changes will be made retroactive ie. apply to existing contracts.

Some say it’s a step too far - but for many residents in villages it can’t come soon enough. How do you change the law to improve consumer protection while leaving others stuck with what they have?

The types of issues occurring with existing contracts include:

• Residents having to pay to repair operator owned chattels, of which some are past their use-by date and should be replaced by the operator.

• exited and until a new resident moves in.

• Residents not getting their money back until the operator has re-licenced the unit. Some people are kept waiting 12+ months.

• Operators making residents liable for any capital loss, even when the resident gets no share of the capital gain.

“If I was thinking about shifting into a retirement village in 2024, I think I’d be at least delaying itor choosing a village that already embraced best Association” says Di Sinclair, Vice President of RVResidents and currently living in a Ryman village. While Rymans do not share any capital gain with their residents they do tick the vast majority of the Village Resident’s Association.

Things such as weekly fees stopping on exit, refund of the capital sum soon after exit, no repairs and maintenance charges and one of the lowest deferred

Ryman offering which puts them at the top of the list for villages that do not share capital gain.

Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon said on the night of his party’s win, ‘What I want is for New Zealanders to be reassured that we are going to deliver a strong and stable government that’s going to get things done… We all share an interest in living in a safe, stable country that celebrates fairness and wants the best for every New Zealander.’ That’s what RVResidents wants - and it’s why the law must

Di sees the law not actually being changed until 2025. “Improvements to the legislation is a given -

If the legislation isn’t going to apply to existing residents, then I’d be holding off moving in. Some of the proposed changes are likely to end up saving residents a lot of time, money and frustration.”

While other villages offer some of these options, a large number of villages cherry-pick what they will give you, and the jury is still out as to whether any governmental changes will apply to existing ORAs. Only a handful of operators offer to share capital gain, making the ORA arrangement more like a housing purchase. We cover some of them in the next section. If you have friends or family that are considering the move to a retirement village, then you might like to share this article with them.

To share… or not to share –

There’s been a lot of discussion by members

over the last few years on the topic of residents sharing in capital gains.

they paid a few hundred thousand 15+ years ago for their right to occupy a village. They don’t own it and they (or their family / estate) won’t share in any of the capital gain when they leave, but when they see other units like theirs in the village being re-licenced for 4 times the price that they will get back, then people start to ask ‘was it worth it?’

Yes, we know the stats. Over 90% of residents say village and the majority of those are actually very happy with their retirement life. No argument there. It’s when you go to exit that, for some, it really hits home.

Well, there are villages that believe sharing in capital gains is possible and they are expanding their developments to other parts of the country.

Karaka Pines Villages

Treating people fairly has been Karaka Pines Villages’ ethos from the beginning. Adam Yates, Chief Executive, set up the company in 2010 after 25 years of running retirement villages for an operator who followed the standard model of keeping the capital gains once residents either moved out or passed away. Karaka Pines has 7 villages scattered throughout New Zealand, sharing 75%+ of the capital gains.

retirement communities recently. Capital gain is just one thing we’ve always offered unlike most

their home if needed.”

carved out a niche. Its Lifestyle model offers one of the lowest entry ages for residents starting at 50 and the majority of the capital gain is retained by residents. Weekly fees are linked to CPI and residents have a lockup area for campervans and boats with a washdown area, at a small cost. Steve Smits-Murray, CEO says “Our model is designed to give residents affordable options. We believe in creating more equitable lifestyle communities and enriching the lives of over-50’s New Zealanders. If the legislation penalises villages like ours that share capital gains then we will see models like this disappear.“

Vivid Living

of companies, has partnered with the well-known Retirement Village space.

Gemma Gloyne, head of Vivid Living says “... We believe in creating relaxed, boutique, retirement

Living neighbourhoods. Keeping our residents connected to their communities and providing the market with more choice. Our model responds to different customer needs by offering a village with a beautiful Residents’ Lounge at it’s heart, but less of the broader amenities that are common in many villages. Instead, we offer a 50% share in any capital gains, a low deferred management fee of 15%, and incredibly favourable repayment terms with a guaranteed buy-back at four months.”

is now one of four villages on offer in Northland, Auckland and the Coromandel. While it still follows the predominant ORA type model, it offers the opportunity of a 50% share in capital gain with only a 5% additional cost to the entry price. It also offers a lower age of entry compared to most others.

Andy Grey, CEO says “We charge an additional 5% for the Optional Premium Payment (50% capital gain sharing). [We believe] an intending resident can reasonably assess whether they think the value will appreciate by 10% or greater during their stay.”

And if you think this is only for the multi-facility villages, then think again...

Lochlea Lifestyle Resort

Located in Ashburton, Mid-Canterbury, Lochlea Lifestyle Resort is an independent operator-owned

exit, residents have the opportunity of sharing in the capital gain by paying a 10% premium on entry and they don’t share in any capital loss. Repairs and maintenance is also covered by the village. Tony Sands, Village Manager says “This has been part of our offering since we started the village over 10 years ago.”

RVResidents congratulates those operators that have a Best Practice model that shares capital gains with residents. If these operators can be doing it, then surely others can too.

You can read more about the Best Practice approach on page 12 - 13 of this edition.

Best Practice Guide and Score Sheet

Choosing the right retirement village is an important decision and trying to compare the differences is not always easy.

In 2022 RVResidents began developing a Best Practice Score that would rank village providers. To ensure the score was based purely on factual data rather than subjective information, RVResidents focused on 19 Key Terms found in each villages Occupation Rights Agreement (ORA). Virtually all of

Each answer is allocated a % score based on RVResidents Best Practice, and then weighted according to level of importance, in general, by residents. A second score called a ‘Capital Gain Balancer’ is then added. This replaces the previous use of two total scores in our 2023 magazine, by taking into account the questions highlighted with a on the Best Practice Survey

the opportunity for both operators and residents to share in costs if a resident is sharing in the capital gain. An operator could then score more if they have minimised the cost to residents, eg. if an operator is sharing capital gain BUT doesn’t share the capital

loss, then they will score maximum points for not sharing capital loss. This rewards those operators prepared to share capital gain with residents while

Capital Gain Balancer Score allows operators the opportunity of up to 45% extra with each question it is linked with. Note: The question ‘Operators Legal Fees’ is if the resident must pay for the operators legal costs associated with relicensing.

While this has been trialled, it is only a basic comparison guide to show how villages or village providers compare according to RVResidents Best Practice. Please conduct your own research as well.

You can view Best Practice scores of some of the operators below, and the Score Sheet on the right will allow you to self-assess your own ORA, or a village you might be thinking about moving into. Also, look out for awards at villages for Best Practice. A full list of villages graded (with % scores), is available at www.rvr.org.nz/best-practice

The RVResidents grading system follows The University of Waikato’s model, but with a full linear % scale. Some variation on grades may occur between the online table, page 12, and this basic grading form due to simplifying and rounding approaches used. Please refer to our online table for updated calculations AND check the operators latest ORA for any changes to terms. Note: While these scores give a basic comparison, they do not grade or compare actual pricing of units, or the weekly fees charged. Please conduct you own research into this and any other that may be part of your move into a village.

Is the Grass Greener Overseas?

controls Aotearoa. Most use either lease models or a rental approach which offers more

United Kingdom

Richmond Villages throughout England.

This is a typical UK retirement village. Entry age is for moving into a village in the UK include:

• reviewed annually, up to 2.5% increase)

• Up to 50% purchase

• Or Rental

Interestingly, Richmond Villages is owned by BUPA which also owns villages in NZ. None of the Bupa NZ villages offer a lease or rental model.

the Landlord & Tenant Act. Leasehold with annual ground rental is the most common in the UK. The rental option is being promoted currently in the UK, as it frees up your capital when you sell your house.

Source: richmond-villages.com

Canada

Sawmill Flats, Arnprior, Ontario, Canada

Entry age is 55+. All apartments and villas are rented at approximately $2500 per month, which includes meals.

Rental is the predominant model in Canada

Retirement homes are regulated by the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority (RHRA) in accordance with the Retirement Homes Act. Legislation is set by the Residential Tenancies Act

The operators in each state have their own organisations, for example, ORCA Ontario Retirement Communities Association. They are equivalent to NZ RVA

United States of America

Cadence Living – Rancho Cucamonga, California

Cadence at Rancho Cucamonga offers private-pay rental apartments. Terms are month-to-month, and no “buy-in” fee is required. Residents pay a monthly rental rate that includes dining, events, housekeeping and linen services, apartment and community maintenance, most utilities and month with no buy-in payment for independent living, and the monthly fee varies depending on the services you require.

Source: ashaliving.org, cadencesl.com

Spain

Ciudad Patricia Senior Resort – Benidorm

Again, entry age is 55+. Residents pay a monthly rental payment + ground tax

Additional care services are payable. Additional fee for use of a garage. Rental is the predominant model in Spain.

Source: senior-living-alicante.com

South Africa

Groenkloof George Retirement Village Glenwood, near Cape Town

Once again, the entry age is from 55+.

Note: Any monies stated will be in that countries currency, not $NZ.

A Life Right Agreement ensures occupancy until death. An additional levy is raised for municipal property tax, sewerage and insurance of the property. In addition, there is a monthly Home Owner’s Association fee, to cover maintenance, insurance, wages of staff and administration costs. When the home is vacated, 90% of the Life Right Sum is returned to the family. The remaining 10% is paid to the Homeowners Association (3%), the Care unit (3%) and to the owner (4%) mainly for maintenance to the property. The 90% payment is made within 6-months of vacating the home.

Right: Richmond Villages, UK.

Centre: Sawmill Flats, Canada.

Left: Ciudad Patricia Senior Resort, Spain.

This is the most common form of contract in South Africa, but the terms of each Life Right Agreement varies between villages. The Retired Persons Act (HDSRPA) with the Older Persons Act provides the elderly with protection against exploitation, in these contracts.

Source: groenkloof.net

Germany

Arbutus Manor Park Retirement Village

So, in Germany one resident in the home must be 62+. There’s an upfront capital payment of $200,000+ for rental of unit for 10 years. In addition there are monthly service fees of $600 which cover all maintenance, gardening, and maintaining appliances. This is reviewed annually. Property tax and insurance is paid by the operator. Recommended that residents have renter’s insurance.

50% of capital is returned to the family. Beyond three years there is no refund as the properties are rented. After 10 years, the resident may stay in the home only if their health permits, but additional rental costs will be required. If they move to the upfront payment, and additional care costs. This type of rental model is the most common in Germany but varies between villages.

Source: arbutusparkmanor.com

When I arrived at the village I had many hopes

Didn’t know what to expect Took a while to learn the ropes

I did not know just who was who So many Sues, Bettys and Bills Donnas, Dorothys and Jeffs - I was scared to say “Boo”

I retreated with a peaceful book to the safety of my house

“Are you okay? “asked neighbour “You’re quiet as a mouse”

I assured her – a lovely soul

I rattled pots and pans

It all began to feel like mine

I quickly learned the way around Found a club to join

Met most delightful people

Had to toss a coin

Months have passed – It’s nearly a year

I have come to enjoy village life I am happy secure, and most content Having found a haven here

Alison Masters, Village Resident

BoP Villages in Unison

for the Retirement Villages in the Bay of Plenty. especially the aged and this was again proven by our two days.

The aim of the project is to assist the villagers by using Choral singing, to overcome hardships, and depression, settle into village life, and make new friends, and by doing that also contribute to society. Money was raised for Waipuna Hospice and Starjam and the events were an enormous success. Helena van der Merwe says “We reached all our goals”. The dates are booked for next year and more and more villages are showing interest. There are 25 villages in the Bay of Plenty, we had six actively taking part and another two already expressed interest in next year’s event.

Our Thanks

RVResidents is fortunate to have many great people assist it’s cause and membership. We are extremely grateful to the countless hours that many of our Local, Regional and National Reps have invested into the Association to get it to where it is today.

One of those involved at an early stage, and who helped create the momentum we have today is Peter Carr. He became involved in the Waikato Regional Association shortly after he and Robyn entered village life in Lauriston Park in 2011. In 2014, three regional groups came together and worked to form

the ‘national’ body. Peter stayed on to assist at a regional level. At the time he was also involved with

In 2016, Peter was elected as Vice President for 2013), and then shortly after, as President for a 3 year term. He contacted Dick Williams, the then RVR Secretary, advising him that the demands on his time would frustrate any decent input he could give. Dick kept track of the time and phoned him in 2019 to ask him onto the National Exec. In 2020 Peter was elected President, and for the next 12 months placed a great deal of energy travelling the length and breadth of the country to gain support for membership and regional growth - which has continued all the more with our current president.

Peter recounts, “At the 2022 AGM two key things happened. We ‘found’ Brian Peat (who I had met earlier in Mosgiel) and persuaded him to take up the role of VP. At the same time I gave the organisation 12 months notice of my intention to step back from the Chair role. It was physically very demanding and I was turning 80.

Peter retired late 2023 from work on the National Exec and as our Government Liaison. Peter will continue to assist regionally. We thank him and Robyn for their tireless support over the years.