Blog Post

    Retirement Villages and Requirements for Transparency Regarding Budgets

    • By Jo Twible
    • •
    • 10 Jan, 2018
    • •

    Case Summary - Pines Management (ACT) Pty Ltd v Eastick & ors Case Summary - Pines Management (ACT) Pty Ltd v Eastick & ors 

    Jo Twible         E: jo@kjblaw.com.au


    On 18 December 2017, the ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal handed down its decision in relation to part of the dispute between The Pines Retirement Village and its residents.

    There were 2 issues in dispute. The first is the budget for the 2017/2018 financial year. The 2nd is the amount of Recurrent Charges to be paid by the Residence for that year.  ACAT made a determination about the budget issue and is due to hear additional evidence regarding the Recurrent Charges issue in mid January 2018.

    There are some bigger lessons for Operators to learn from The Pines decision. First and foremost, Operators need to prepare their budgets based on evidence and provide any evidence the Residents request to support the proposed expenditure. ACAT was extremely clear in its decision that Residents are entitled to information including copies of tax invoices or quotes.

    The Pines decision took a requested budget the Operator sought to be approved of nearly $189,000 and reduced it to just over $99,000. This is extremely significant given the previous year's budget was $155,673.

    Key determinations made in this decision regarding particular line items were as follows:

    1. an Operator should not expect to be able to fund its application to ACAT to get approval for the Budget and increases in Recurrent Charges from those Recurrent Charges. In this case, ACAT was very clear that a situation where it disapproved over half of the requested Budget as the proceedings were certainly not wholly in the interest of the residents (a requirement under section 260 (2) of the Retirement Villages Act 2012. If the Operator had been wholly successful in having its proposed Budget approved, the door might remain open to then seek the inclusion of the Legal Fees in the Budget;
    2. cost to fix defects in the construction of the Retirement Village are not to be paid for from Recurrent Charges as they do not constitute capital maintenance;
    3. Where a Retirement Village is co-located with an Aged Care Facility, an Operator should seek a breakdown from its insurer as to which components of the insurance premium relate to the Village and which relate to the Aged Care Facility. Interestingly, where the insurer only provided a partial breakdown, ACAT utilised the breakdown provided and then apportioned the remaining premium and insurance brokerage fees on the basis of the comparative insured values of the Retirement Village and the Aged Care Facility.   Similarly, where there is only one water meter that services both facilities, the costs for connection to the network/supply charges are shared;
    4.  If the Land on which the Retirement Village is located also includes a component of vacant land which is not reasonably utilised by the Residents (regardless of what the Operator may say about the ability to use that area), the Operator should not include gardening cost to maintain that vacant land nor the proportional component of general rates for that area of land in the Retirement Village Budget;
    5. Separate line items for Repairs & Maintenance and Capital Maintenance cause some confusion, particularly where both are really Capital Maintenance under the legislation. Notwithstanding commenting to this effect, an allowance was made for Repairs & Maintenance separate to the Capital Maintenance line item. The amount allowed was $300 and appeared to be to cover the cost for replacing light bulbs.
    6.  Residents need to understand that capital maintenance can include replacing part of an overall capital item. In this situation, ACAT was clear that replacing an alarm number pad and door station formed part of the course of the maintenance of the overall capital item – the alarm system;
    7.  The amounts to be allocated in the Budget for a Village Manager may not reflect what is actually being paid for that Village Manager. In The Pines decision, Presidential Member McCarthy accepted that the Village, as a small Village, only required the Village Manager's services for a maximum of 4 hours per day. Insufficient evidence was provided regarding the appropriate rate to pay for the Village Manager. While ACAT clearly indicated that it was seeking appropriate evidence (such as a reference to an Award or details of what other Managers in other Villages were paid for their services), this evidence was not supplied. In the end ACAT determines an hourly rate, itself. Further, as no evidence was provided as to the requirement for all the amount of the superannuation guarantee to be paid, no allowance was made for it. This does not mean that Residents should take the view that superannuation guarantee requirements may be disregarded and are not payable from Recurrent Charges. Instead, it is a big warning sign to Operators that if they are seeking to have their Budget approved by ACAT, they need to provide appropriate evidence and references to the relevant legislation to substantiate the amount they are seeking to be included. Had the Operator provided that evidence then I am reasonably confident ACAT would have included an allowance for it in the Budget;
    8.  ACAT will also look at the quality of the services being provided and whether there is a more cost effective/better means of those services being provided. In The Pines decision, one of the tasks been undertaken by the Village Manager was bookkeeping activities. Evidence from the auditor was that much time was spent by the auditor in correcting errors in the bookkeeping and that these errors were in part because of the Operator being unwilling to obtain a full version (rather than a training version) of the software and that the Village Manager was unskilled in these activities. Interestingly, while it appears the hours allocated for the Village Manager was reduced, it does not appear that a corresponding allowance was made for having a third party bookkeeper undertake those activities;
    9. Much was made about the lack of provision of evidence to support the proposed Budget. Another expense that was disallowed was an amount for a relief Village Manager while the permanent Village Manager was on leave. While my view is that a relief Village Manager is not an unreasonable expense to include in a Budget, it needs to be backed up with evidence as to who that Relief Village Manager is likely to be, what arrangements are made for that person to be available and evidence as to what they are paid or to be paid for providing those services;
    10. Contingencies – ACAT drew attention to the provisions in the Regulations which specify how much may be included in a Budget for Contingencies.  Regulation 38 states where the Annual Budget is $200,000 or less, the maximum amount that may be allocated for contingencies is $1,000. Once the budget exceeds $200,000, the maximum amount for Contingencies is 0.5% of the total amount of the Annual Budget.

    Finally, ACAT made it very clear how it interpreted the provisions of section 166 of the Retirement Villages Act 2012. Section 166 states the Operator commits an offence if it spends money received for a Recurrent Charges and does not spend that money in accordance with the approved annual budget (or an approved annual budget as amended under section 167). While ACAT acknowledged that there is an exception in section 166 which states that the offence provision does not apply if the spending is a change in spending between items in the approved annual budget and does not reduce the level of services the Retirement Village provides and does not cause a total spending provided for by the approved annual budget to be exceeded. When items in a Budget are allocated for particular things, for example cleaning, Presidential Member McCarthy expressed the view that it is difficult to see how the exemption in section 166 (3) could apply without reducing the level of cleaning services. In the Presidential Member's view, the nature of the Budget providing "buckets" of money for different expenditure is such that there is unlikely to be many circumstances where the exemption would apply.

    This decision brings home that an Operator is not free to set whatever Budget it likes. Residents have significant power to refuse to agree to a Budget and to expect the Operator to provide sufficient information regarding the anticipated expenditure, based on evidence, to enable the Residents to make a fully informed decision. There are many good Operators in Canberra who provide the appropriate levels of transparency to their Residents. For those who do not, this decision should put the Operator on notice that they need to start doing so. Importantly, just because an Operator does not get their Budget approved, does not mean that they can reduce the Services provided to the Residents. With the legislation requiring the Operator to meet any shortfall in the Budget against actual expenditure (with some limited exemptions), the outcome of The Pines decision is at those Operators could find themselves forced into a position of having to provide the evidence, seeking a formal amendment to the Budget, or foot the bill themselves.

    News

    Superannuation – it’s a strange thing

    By Kerstin Glomb - kerstin@kjblaw.com.au • 10 Jul, 2019 •
    Kerstin Glomb           E:  kerstin@kjblaw.com.au

    Superannuation is usually one of the main assets of a person and people refer to it as “” My Superannuation”. One of the biggest misconceptions about Superannuation is that it forms part of your estate - it does not automatically do so !

    In other words, your super may not be distributed to the beneficiaries named in your Will or to the persons entitled to your estate under the law (should you not have a valid Will).

    Do you own assets outside Australia?

    By Kerstin Glomb • 09 Jul, 2019 •
    Kerstin Glomb           E:  kerstin@kjblaw.com.au

    Australia is a land of immigrants. Are you one in four Australians who were born overseas? Have you or do you expect to inherit overseas assets? Or have you acquired assets overseas?

    The Importance of Understanding the Term, 'Legal Personal Representative'

    By Andrew Freer • 06 Nov, 2017 •
    The Importance of Understanding the Term, 'Legal Personal Representative'

    Joint Tenancy vs Tenants in Common: Do you know the difference and why does it matter?

    By Philippa Webb • 20 Sep, 2017 •
    Do you know the difference between joint tenancy and tenants in common and why does it matter?

    10 Things You May Not Know About Estate Administration

    By Andrew Freer • 10 Nov, 2016 •

    In times of bereavement it is often distressing for members of the deceased’s family to address the issues surrounding the wishes of the deceased. It can also be difficult to try and understand the specific language used in the administration of an estate even when you aren’t trying to cope with the loss of a loved one. To help you better understand this sometimes confusing process we have prepared a short series called ‘10 Things You May Not Know About Estate Administration’.

    Andrew Freer             E:   andrew@kjblaw.com.au


    Part 4 - Passing Accounts

    A legal personal representative has a general duty to keep accounts and render them to beneficiaries when called on to do so. In addition, section 58 of the   Administration and Probate Act 1929   (ACT) identifies that the rules may require a legal personal representative to prepare, have examined and have accounts passed by the Court in certain circumstances.

    In most cases, a legal personal representative will be able to comply with his or her general duty to account (whether or not a demand has been made) and satisfy beneficiaries by providing an itemised list of:

    • assets transferred;
    • assets realised and still held;
    • funds received from all sources;
    • payments for estate liabilities, distributions & money retained; and
    • provision for liabilities not yet paid.

    What are Accounts?

    Accounts are:

    • a written record of the legal personal representative's dealing with the estate assets showing, in broad terms, itemised detail of assets transferred to beneficiaries, assets realised or retained; funds received from all sources, payments for estate liabilities, liabilities incurred but not yet paid, distributions to beneficiaries and money retained and re-invested; and
    • the original supporting documents, that is, receipts, statements and invoices.

    The passing of accounts involves a process akin to an audit by a Registrar of the court to determine both whether payments have been made and if so, whether they are proper. A legal personal representative is required to file and pass formal accounts when:

    • ordered to do so on the application of a beneficiary or the court of its own motion;
    • an executor wishes to claim commission and cannot reach agreement with affected beneficiaries;
    • an executor desires to obtain a release but beneficiaries are unwilling to give one.

    What do accounts look like?

    There is no standard format for accounting in an informal way.  The key is to inform beneficiaries adequately.  Often accounts will be by letter from the executor's solicitor.  The frequency, form and detail will depend on the make-up of assets in the estate and how complex the estate administration has been. Informal yet sufficiently detailed accounts will frequently both satisfy beneficiaries and fulfil the executor's duty to account.

    If you are unsure whether you are keeping appropriate records, or are concerned that a legal personal representative is not keeping you properly updated on status of an estate, please contact the team at KJB Law on 6281 0999 to discuss.

     

    Andrew Freer           E:   andrew@kjblaw.com.au


    10 Things You May Not Know About Estate Administration

    By Andrew Freer • 10 Nov, 2016 •

    In times of bereavement it is often distressing for members of the deceased’s family to address the issues surrounding the wishes of the deceased. It can also be difficult to try and understand the specific language used in the administration of an estate even when you aren’t trying to cope with the loss of a loved one. To help you better understand this sometimes confusing process we have prepared a short series called ‘10 Things You May Not Know About Estate Administration’.

    Andrew Freer             E:   andrew@kjblaw.com.au


    Part 3 – Commission

    What is it?

    Section 70 of the   Administration and Probate Act 1929   (ACT) allows the court to award commission to a legal personal representative, or a trustee of a trust established under a will, out of the estate assets for their "pains and trouble" that is just. "Pains" is regarded as the responsibility, anxiety and worry; "trouble" is the work done.

    How do I get it?

    It is necessary for a legal personal representative to claim commission – it won’t just be given to them. The amount of commission is always at the discretion of the Court, and its usual practice is to award commission within commonly adopted parameters.

    Conduct such as breaches of trust and failure to act promptly in the administration of the estate may limit, or even defeat, what would otherwise be an appropriate claim for commission.

    On the other hand, unnecessary complaints or accusations by beneficiaries against a legal personal representative who is performing their duties in a proper way can be a factor operating in favour of the legal personal representative in the award of commission.

    A legacy to the legal personal representative in lieu of commission, or in recognition of their services as executor (whether stated expressly or inferred from the will), if accepted, will normally result in no award of commission to the legal personal representative. However, a legacy to the legal personal representative without reference to them acting as legal personal representative will usually not be a bar to an award of commission. Depending on the amount of the legacy and the size of the estate, it may be a factor considered by the Court in reducing the ultimate award. Also, a gift of a share, or even the whole, of the residuary estate to the legal personal representative does not of itself prevent an award of commission.

    A legal personal representative is entitled to reimbursement out of the estate for out of pocket expenses incurred in the performance of their duties, such as for postage and telephone expenses. These amounts are in addition to commission.

    By Consent?

    There is nothing to prevent a legal personal representative and affected beneficiaries (who are fully informed) from agreeing to payment of an amount for commission without any order or other sanction of the court. The affected beneficiaries are those who would bear any part of the burden of the commission payment. Ordinarily this would not include legatees. Commission is regarded as a testamentary expense and is ordinarily paid out of residue.

    By Court Approval?

    If such an agreement can’t be reached though, to claim commission the legal personal representative must file and pass accounts with the Court. Ordinarily the legal personal representative claims commission at the same time as they seek the passing of accounts.

    How Much Commission?

    In short, how much is in the discretion of the Court. In NSW the usual practice of the Court is to allow commission by applying different percentage rates to each component of the accounts - assets realised, assets transferred in specie and income collected. Another thing to consider is that the ATO considers commission paid to an executor to be assessable income of the executor personally.

    If you think you may be entitled to commission, or want to ensure there is appropriate provision made for your legal personal representative in your will, the team at KJB Law can help. Please contact us on 6281 0999 to discuss.

     

    Andrew Freer           E:   andrew@kjblaw.com.au


    10 Things You May Not Know About Estate Administration

    By Andrew Freer • 10 Nov, 2016 •

    In times of bereavement it is often distressing for members of the deceased’s family to address the issues surrounding the wishes of the deceased. It can also be difficult to try and understand the specific language used in the administration of an estate even when you aren’t trying to cope with the loss of a loved one. To help you better understand this sometimes confusing process we have prepared a short series called ‘10 Things You May Not Know About Estate Administration’.

    Andrew Freer             E:   andrew@kjblaw.com.au


    Part 2 – Ademption

    What is ademption?

    Ademption is a legal concept that applies to gifts of specific property made under a will. For example, leaving a gift of a specific identified painting to a friend in your will. If during your life you dispose of that specific property – either by sale or otherwise - so that at the date of your death it is no longer yours to dispose of, that specific gift is taken to have “adeemed”. Where this happens, the beneficiary gets nothing.

    If the subject matter of the gift was intentionally sold by the will maker between the date of the will and the date of death, the beneficiary of the adeemed gift is usually not entitled to the proceeds of its sale.

    The general rule of ademption though only applies to specific gifts – it does not apply to a gift of the whole estate or to a gift of residue.

    Does intention matter?

    The intention of the testator in making the disposal is generally not relevant. Thus an ademption will occur where there is a "forced" disposal such as by a transfer under a pre‑existing buy-sell provision in a shareholders or partnership agreement, a writ of execution, order of the Family Court or mortgagee sale.

    Can I get around it?

    An exception to the general rule of ademption exists where it can be shown that the property ceased to be part of the testator's estate because of the unauthorised action of an agent or by an unlawful act unknown to the testator.

    Disposal of an asset as a result of theft, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty or similar misconduct may be capable of being set aside under general equitable principles. Setting aside the transaction may result in the asset being restored to the estate. In such a case the question of ademption, as such, would not arise: having been restored to the estate, the property could then pass under the will as if it were owned by the deceased at the time of death, subject to the liability of the property for debts, funeral and testamentary expenses.

    In NSW, section 22 of the   Powers of Attorney Act 2003   (NSW) sets out that beneficiaries of property disposed of before death by an attorney under a power of attorney retain certain rights and the general rule as to ademption can be displaced in certain circumstances. There is no equivalent provision in the ACT however. There is a therefore a fundamental difference between the position in NSW and the ACT.

    Where this situation arises, a beneficiary may have several courses available to overcome an apparent ademption of a specific gift, including:

    • applying for construction or administration proceedings on the basis of misdescription of the item subject of the specific gift, or change in name or form of that property;
    • seeking to set aside the disposal on the basis that it was done so on a tortious or fraudulent basis; and
    • asserting that the disposal was made by an attorney or financial manager (in NSW but not in the ACT).

    The action to be taken by the person seeking to overcome the apparent ademption in the above circumstances essentially entails proceedings for construction of the will. If you are unsure how this principle may apply to your will, or are a beneficiary who is concerned that a gift to you may have adeemed, please contact the team at KJB Law on 6281 0999 to discuss.

    Andrew Freer           E:   andrew@kjblaw.com.au


    10 Things You May Not Know About Estate Administration

    By Andrew Freer • 10 Nov, 2016 •

    In times of bereavement it is often distressing for members of the deceased’s family to address the issues surrounding the wishes of the deceased. It can also be difficult to try and understand the specific language used in the administration of an estate even when you aren’t trying to cope with the loss of a loved one. To help you better understand this sometimes confusing process we have prepared a short series called ‘10 Things You May Not Know About Estate Administration’.

    Andrew Freer             E:   andrew@kjblaw.com.au


    Part 1 – What right do you have to inspect and copy a will of a deceased person?

    It is not uncommon for family members, beneficiaries or eligible family provision applicants to be interested in obtaining a copy of the will of a deceased person. As an interested person you may wish to find out what entitlements you have under the will of the deceased. You may want information to enable them to decide whether to make a family provision claim. You may simply be trying to determine the identity of the executor and the beneficiaries. Alternatively, you may wish to find out when a will was made to assist in deciding whether to apply for a grant of another will, or challenge the validity of a will.

    But what is the legal position?

    In the first instance you should make a direct request to the person who actually has possession or control of the will.  Section 126 of the   Administration and Probate Act 1929   (ACT) sets out who is entitled to inspect will of deceased person. It provides that a person who has possession or control of a deceased person's will must, on request in writing by an interested person, allow the interested person to inspect, or be given copies of, the will or any copies of the will in the person's possession or control. The legislation contains a definition of who is an interested person.

    The obligation to allow inspection and copying extends to both the actual custodian as well as any person whose instructions or permission would be required, such as the executor named in the will.

    If a copy is not forthcoming following a direct request though, rule 3111 of the   Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT)   gives the ACT Supreme Court the power to issue a subpoena to a person to produce a will or document.  To obtain this though you need to make an application to the ACT Supreme Court.  Not just anyone can make the application - you must first have standing to apply. This stops just anyone applying to see a copy of a will, and restricts it to only those who actually have a legitimate interest. Interested persons who have standing to seek a copy of the will or document can include:

    • the spouse, parent or issue of the deceased;
    • anyone named as a beneficiary in the will, or an earlier will;
    • anyone who would be entitled to share in the estate if the deceased died intestate;
    • an attorney of the deceased under an enduring power of attorney; and
    • a creditor of the deceased.

    Making an application to the ACT Supreme Court is a significant step though and should not be undertaken lightly. If you are having difficulty obtaining a copy of a will, or aren’t sure whether you should agree to a request for a copy, the team at KJB Law can help.

     

    Andrew Freer           E:   andrew@kjblaw.com.au


    Buying or Selling at Auction - Don't Get Caught Out!

    By Jo Twible • 10 Nov, 2016 •

    Nearly 14% of all residential properties listed for sale on allhomes.com.au in the Canberra & Queanbeyan Region are listed as being for sale by auction. In Weston Creek and the Woden Valley just over 32% of homes listed are for sale by auction. [1]   Getting good legal advice on the marketing contract prior to the auction can be crucial and failing to do so could cost you thousands of dollars.

    Jo Twible           E:  jo@kjblaw.com.au


    The 5 Top Reasons why you should get Pre-Auction Advice


     1.  Want to make changes to the Contract? Don’t wait till auction day!

    When you bid at auction, you are bidding to buy the property on the terms contained in the Contract  as it has been prepared on behalf   of  the  Seller. If you want changes made to those terms, these need to be negotiated and agreement obtained  before  you bid.

     2.  Problems with the Property? Don’t let them be your problems!
    What you think may be just a cracked tile in the shower might actually mean gutting and replacing the bathroom. Your lawyer can bring to your attention matters you may wish to follow up with the Building Inspector before you bid so you have a better understanding of any potential problems.
     
     3.  No one worries about unapproved structures, do they?
    Some unapproved structures can be fine, some can jeopardise your loan approval or invalidate a later insurance claim. During pre-auction advice, your lawyer should discuss any unapproved structures disclosed in the Contract and then assist you to negotiate appropriate special conditions to be inserted into the Contract to resolve these matters.  

     4.  Can you really rely upon the Building Report?
    A Buyer can only rely upon a Building Report contained in a Contract if it is less than 180 days old from the date of inspection at the time you exchange. Your lawyer should check that the Building Report is in date so that if it is later discovered the Inspector missed something they should have seen, you can still make a claim on the Inspector’s professional indemnity insurance.

     5.  I’m the Buyer, aren’t I?
    Couples buying a home might buy it in joint names as joint tenants, tenants in common in equal or unequal shares, through a family trust or a self-managed superannuation fund.   When obtaining pre-auction advice, your lawyer should discuss the applicable options with you and advise you the information to give the Agent if you are successful at auction so that the appropriate Buyer details are inserted into the Contract. Getting this wrong can cost you thousands of dollars in stamp duty.

    If the home of your dreams is for sale by auction, the team at KJB Law can assist you to be auction ready. For further information on our pre-auction advice services, please contact KJB Law on 6281 0999.

     

    [1]  Data obtained from allhomes.com.au as at 20 May 2015

    Mr Fluffy Buyback Scheme

    By Raina Sinha • 10 Nov, 2016 •

    Loose Fill Asbestos Insulation Eradication Scheme

    The ACT Government has implemented a buyback scheme to all eligible home owners.

    The ACT Government will offer to purchase all affected houses in order to enable the demolition of houses and remediation of the sites. The Government has commenced this process by sending eligible homeowners an offer to accept the surrender of their crown lease.

    The value of the affected properties will be determined through a valuation process established under the scheme. The Territory will pay for the costs associated with obtaining two valuations of the property by valuers appointed by the Australian Property Institute ACT Division (API). The value of the property will be assessed at market value as at 28 October 2014 and as though the house does not contain loose fill asbestos. The surrender sum offered by the Territory will be the average of the two valuations.

    The scheme provides for a third valuation (known as the Presidential Determination) in specific circumstances. If requested by the homeowner, the third valuation will be at the expense of the homeowner. The decision of the third valuer will be final.

    Following the valuation, eligible homeowners who choose to participate in the scheme will then enter into a deed of surrender (in regard to the Crown Lease) and, where applicable, statutory declarations.  Eligible homeowners will waive any right to pursue legal action against the Territory and the Commonwealth in relation to financial loss with respect to the property but will retain all their rights in respect of personal injury claims (if any).

    Participants in the scheme will require independent legal advice as part of the documentation required to complete the application process.

    Eligible homeowners will receive $1,000.00 (inc GST) to go towards the legal costs associated with the surrender of their lease. This will be paid on the settlement of the matter. In addition, eligible homeowners will receive a waiver of the stamp duty (to the value of the affected property) on a residential property purchased in the ACT. This may be applied to a new property being purchased or the subsequent re-purchase of the block.

    Following remediation of the site, the Territory will offer the eligible homeowner a first right of refusal to repurchase the site. The repurchase price will be the market value determined independently at the time the block is offered for sale and on the basis of the best and highest use value of the block. The Government has indicated its desire to recoup some of the costs of the buyback program through this process.   There may be some issues with this for particular homeowners whose blocks are suitable for subdivision.


     

    Important Dates

    • In order to participate in the buyback scheme, eligible homeowners must lodge an application with the Asbestos Response Taskforce by 30 June 2015. Applications received after 30 June 2015 will not be accepted.
    • With limited exceptions, the buyback scheme will not be available to people who purchase an affected property after 28 October 2014. This means that a person who exchanges contracts on an affected block after 28 October 2014 is not eligible to apply for financial assistance under the buyback scheme and will be responsible for all costs associated with the maintenance and/or remediation of the property.
    • Owners of affected properties that were purchased (contracts exchanged) within the period 18 February 2014 – 28 October 2014 who participate in the scheme will be paid the amount they paid for the affected block. The buyback scheme valuation process will not be used in these cases.

    The Government has indicated that participation in the buyback scheme is voluntary. However, residents who elect to remain in their properties will be subject to increased restrictions in terms of a requirement for an asbestos management plan and other physical interventions. It is noted that such interventions are likely to have a significant impact on the amenity of the home.   In some cases it will prevent the use of heating and cooling services within the home. It is anticipated that such conditions (as yet not fully determined) will be made mandatory in 2015 under the Dangerous Substances Act 2004. Any costs associated with remedial works under these circumstances will be outside of the buyback program and so will be at the cost of the home owner.

    In the longer term, the ACT Government has not ruled out implementing a compulsory acquisition of affected properties.

    KJB will be assisting clients with advice in relation to the buyback scheme and the proposed surrender documents, when they issue. If you have a Mr Fluffy home and would like to discuss your options in relation to the buyback scheme, please contact to organise an appointment.


     

    Loose Fill Asbestos Insulation Enquiries

    Raina Sinha           E:   raina@kjblaw.com.au

     


    Share by: