THE LAUREL SPRINGS INVESTIGATION
FOR ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE INVESTIGATION OF
THE LAUREL SPRINGS RETIREMENT VILLAGE
PLEASE SELECT FROM THE LINKS BELOW
FINANCIAL INVESTIGATION
DETAILS OF FINDINGS
Details of Findings
10. Improperly conducted voting procedures at AGM's 2019 and 2020
18. Defrauded residents who bought new unit - structure unfit for purpose, and unconscionable exit terms
19. Deceived residents - renaming of Village to Resort

10. Improperly conducted voting procedures at AGM's 2019 and 2020

The voting for financial resolutions at the Laurel Springs Annual General Meetings has been improperly conducted, so as to allow the scheme operators to avoid answering questions about the Laurel Springs finances. Furthermore, the responses they gave to residents were evasive, false and misleading. In addition to the documentary evidence below, four digital audio recordings of relevant parts of the 2020 AGM are available for download from EVIDENCE DOCUMENTS in the menu bar above.

10.1 The 2013 AGM

10.1.1 There is no record of any opportunity allowed for discussion or questions before voting at the 2013 AGM:

Evidence Document D6.10 - 05

Top

10.2 The 2014 AGM

10.2.1 Except for a "Dorothy Dixer" at Motion 3, there is no record of any opportunity allowed for discussion or questions before voting at the 2014 AGM:

Evidence Document D6.10 - 05

Top

10.3 The 2015 AGM

10.3.1 There is no record of any opportunity allowed for discussion or questions before voting at the 2015 AGM: This was raised by a resident in General Business, after voting was completed, who received an evasive and hostile response.

10.3.2 The scheme operators were increasing fees for singles to reduce the gap between singles and doubles. This is a breach of the Residence Contract and Service Agreement, which stipulates that the GSF shall increase quarterly with CPI. Refer to pages 3 and 4 for details about unlawful fee increases. It is also a contravention of s106 of the Retirement Villages Act, which limits the increase in GSF to CPI with some specific exceptions that did not apply.

10.3.3 The resident was told that she should have taken her concerns to the "delegates". It is the scheme operators who are responsible for setting budgets, not the delegates. This is typical of the contemptuous treatment of residents in Laurel Springs.

Evidence Document D6.10 - 05

Top

10.4 The 2016 AGM

10.4.1 There is no record of any opportunity allowed for discussion or questions before voting at the 2016 AGM:

Evidence Document D6.10 - 05

Top

10.5 The 2017 AGM

10.5.1 There is no record of any opportunity allowed for discussion or questions before voting on the first three motions at the 2017 AGM.

10.5.2 At the fourth motion, the chairperson of the delegates falsely told the residents that the increase in fees was "very close to the current CPI", whereas the increase was actually more than three times CPI.

10.5 3 The fee increases were a a breach of the Residence Contract and Service Agreement, which stipulates that the GSF shall increase quarterly with CPI. Refer to pages 3 and 4 for details about unlawful fee increases. It is also a contravention of s106 of the Retirement Villages Act, which limits the increase in GSF to CPI with some specific exceptions that did not apply.

10.5.4 The manager falsely stated that the fee increases were allowed under the retirement village Act.

Evidence Document D6.10 - 05

Top

10.6 The 2018 AGM

10.6.1 At Motion 2 during the 2018 AGM, I asked why the scheme operators had contravened s91 of the Retirement Villages Act by using Money from the Capital Replacement Fund to refurbish units. The response from the scheme operator was false and evasive. Refer to page 7 for details.

10.6.2 At motion 4, a resident expressed her concern about the rise in village fees, and received an evasive and false response. Refer to pages 3 and 4 for details about unlawful fee increases.

Evidence Document D6.10 - 05

Top

10.7 The 2019 AGM

10.7.1 At the 2019 AGM, there was no opportunity to ask questions before the voting for motions in Agenda Items 7 and 8.

10.7.2 At Agenda Item 9, residents did ask questions, and received evasive and false answers.

10.7.3 After Beryl asked whether or not future fee increases would be limited to CPI. The Manager stated that the minimum 5% increase, the "Grandfather clause", would no longer apply but this was then contradicted by scheme operator Lance Taylor who said that it would be reviewed next year.

10.7.4 Neither the manager nor the scheme operators, acknowledged the existence of clause 3.1.3 of our Residence Contract and Service Agreement which stipulates that GSF shall increase quarterly with CPI.

Evidence Document D6.10 - 05

Top

10.8 The 2020 AGM

10.8.1 Except for a "Dorothy Dixer" at Motion 8, there was no opportunity allowed for discussion or questions before voting at the 2020 AGM.

10.8.2 The manager and scheme operators spoke in favour of the motions, but did not invite any questions or discussion:

Evidence Document D6.10 - 05

10.8.3 Two residents later raised the matter in General Business, but it was too late because voting was completed by then. The responses they received were evasive, false and misleading.

10.8.4 When Bev asked whether or not residents would be able to speak on each motion, the manager feigned surprise that this had been a problem for residents:

Evidence Document D6.10 - 04

10.8.5 When Beryl asked whether or not our contract applied, in relation to the increases in GSF, the manager falsely stated that were complying with the contract. Furthermore, Brian McGuiness could be heard telling the manager what to say.

10.8.6 Brian McGuiness asked Beryl if she was saying that the fees were too high; in my opinion, this was an attempt to intimidate the residents.

10.8.7 The manager made the blatantly false statement that the contract is under "LUSPING trading as Laurel Springs and not the scheme operator":

Evidence Document D6.10 - 03

10.8.8 Lusping Pty Ltd is the scheme operator and, because Brian Anthony McGuiness and Lance Robert Taylor are the two directors of the company, they are the scheme operators; refer to page 1 for details.

10.8.9 The manager made the deceptive comment that the "you've never been charged CPI quarterly". This falsely implies that increasing fees quarterly by CPI, as required in our Residence Contracts, is less beneficial to residents than increasing them yearly by CPI. In conditions of constant economic growth, as experienced for many years until 2020, increasing quarterly by CPI is slightly more beneficial to residents. For a numerical proof of this, refer to my submission to QCAT dated 11 December 2018 from the link QCAT - GOLDING V LUSPING PTY LTD.

Top

This web site is owned, designed and maintained by Paul Henry Golding of Nambour, QLD, Australia. © 2007-2021