Get InvolvedResponsibility for Reinstatement Costs in Leasehold & Licence Villages
Tabular Summary of Section 62 (as at 27 May 2008) (assuming no “accelerated wear” or deliberate damage”)
Table A s62(2) – Residence Contract before 15 March 2006:
Date of residence contract
If residence contract specifies party responsible
If residence contact does not specify party responsible
Before 1 July 2000 (“existing residence contract”)
Costs paid by party specified in contract
Costs shared by resident and scheme operator in same proportion as they share sale price
From 1 July 2000 to 14 March 2006
Costs paid by party specified in contract
Costs paid by scheme operator
Table B s62(3) – Residence Contract dated 15 March 2006 to 31 Jan 2019:
Date of residence contract
If resident shares in capital gain on exit
If resident does not participate in capital gain
15 March 2006 to 31 Jan 2019
Costs shared by resident and scheme operator in same proportion as they share capital gain
Scheme operator
Note: The definition of “reinstatement works” in the Act does not operate to limit the work an operator can do when a resident departs, HOWEVER, it does limit the costs that can be recovered from the resident (if the resident has any responsibility for those costs according to the summary above). If an operator performs a more substantial renovation than goes beyond the definition of “reinstatement works”, they can only recover the costs that would have been necessary for a mere reinstatement (and then only to the extent that the resident has responsibility for those costs according to the summary above). Where a more substantial renovation is proposed, a resident should request that a hypothetical quote for a mere reinstatement be obtained first, so it can be used for calculating the resident’s contribution.