18 October 2023 (in person at VCAT Bendigo) 19 March 2024 (by videoconference).

Hayse v Bendigo Park Lane Holiday Park Pty Ltd (Residential Tenancies) [2025] VCAT 457

Mr C. Findlay, Solicitor and Mr J. Hellings, General Manager

Mr C. Findlay, Solicitor and Mr J. Hellings, General Manager

1. The respondent site owner is Bendigo Park Lane Holiday Park Pty Ltd trading as Park Lane Bendigo ('Park Lane').
2. Park Lane owns the premises located at 761 McIvor Highway, Junortoun ('the property'). Junortoun is in the goldfields' region of Bendigo. The property is registered as a caravan park. It is a mixed - use caravan park which contains a tourist park which is the tourists' area and the Part 4A park which is the residents' area.
3. There are 36 sites in the residents' area. The sites are let to site tenants by the site owner under Part 4A site agreements. The dwellings on the sites, which are owned by the tenants are substantial and include a house, carport and gardens, and are intended to remain on their sites permanently.
4. The tourists' area includes sites for hire for caravans and camping and dwellings (referred to as 'cabins') for varying periods of time.
5. Ms Hayse is a site tenant who resides under a Part 4A site agreement at site 91 in the residents' area. Her Part 4A Site Agreement was executed on 10 February 2017, and her commencing site fee was $142 per week.
6. Mr Dyer and Mrs Dyer are site tenants who reside at site 119 in the residents' area. Their Part 4A site agreement was executed on 12 December 2019 and their commencing site fee was $173 per week.
7. The applicants were each sent a notice of proposed site rent increase - non - fixed amount ('the notices') under section 206V(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (as it then applied) ('the RT Act') on 14 April 2023.
8. The amount of the proposed rent increase in the notice to Ms Hayse is $14 from her then current rent of $186 per week to a proposed rent of $200 per week commencing on 1 July 2023.
9. The amount of the proposed rent increase in the notice to Mr Dyer and Mrs Dyer is $14 from their then current rent of $191 per week to a proposed rent of $205 per week commencing on 1 July 2023.
10. The notices described the method used to calculate the rent increase as "Market Based Factors, including substantial increases to Insurance, Council Rates and other Operating Costs".
11. In response to the notices, the applicants applied to the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria ('the Director') for a rent increase investigation.
12. The Director delegated the investigation to Mr Jeffrey King, Compliance Officer/Residential Tenancies Inspector, who provided a report dated 31 August 2023 ('the Director's report') to each of the applicants and to Park Lane in which he concluded that the site rent increases are excessive and noted that the applicants could apply to VCAT requesting orders declaring the site rent increases excessive.
13. On 21 September 2023, VCAT ordered that as the proceedings of the applicants relate to the same park, it is appropriate that they be heard together. The orders also put the parties on notice that in addition to the Director's report, the Tribunal must consider the matters under section 206Y(3) of the RT Act.
14. The hearing commenced in person at VCAT Bendigo on 18 October 2023. Each of Ms Hayse and Mr Dyer gave oral evidence and handed up copies of photographs upon which they relied. They did not call any witnesses. Mr King was not called to give evidence. Park Lane was represented by Mr Findlay, solicitor from Securitec Lawyers & Consultants. In attendance for Park Lane was Mr Hellings, General Manager. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, Mr Findlay had filed and served supporting documents.
15. The hearing was adjourned part heard and proceeded by videoconference on 19 March 2024. Between the hearing dates, Park Lane filed and served further supporting documents and submissions. On the second hearing day, Mr Hellings gave evidence, and submissions were made by Mr Findlay.
16. I reserved my decision at the conclusion of the hearing. Written reasons were requested by the respondent.
17. I now set out in the reasons below the relevant evidence and law and findings.

1. Section 1 of the RT Act sets out that one of its main purposes is to provide for the regulation of agreements between site owners and site tenants in respect of Part 4A sites and Part 4A dwellings.
2. Under section 3 of the RT Act a Part 4A site is defined as a site that is available for occupation under a site agreement and rent in relation to a site agreement is relevantly defined as the amount paid to a site owner by a site tenant to occupy a Part 4A site and use facilities and services.
3. The rights and duties of site owners and site tenants are set out in Part 4A of the RT Act which is headed Site agreements and site - tenant owned dwellings.
4. Section 206S relates to rent, fees and charges under site agreements and section 206S(1) relevantly provides:

(1) A site agreement must include details of-

(a) the rent, fees and other charges payable under the site agreement; and

(b) the amount of the rent, fees and other charges payable under the site agreement; and

(c) the purposes for which the rent, fees and other charges are charged under the site agreement; and

(d) the basis on which the rent, fees and other charges are calculated and adjusted under the site agreement, including in accordance with section 206SA (1); and

1. Section 206SA relates to rent increases in site agreements and relevantly provides:

(1) A site agreement may provide that rent under the site agreement may be increased -

(e) subject to subsections (3) by a fixed amount in accordance with a specific method of calculating the rent increase; or

(f) by a non - fixed amount.

....................................

(2) A site owner must not increase the rent payable by a site tenant at intervals of less than 12 months.

(3) For the purposes of section (1) (a) a specified method of calculating a rent increase may refer to multiple methods of calculating a rent increase, based on varying circumstances, provided that only one method applies for each circumstance.

.........................

1. Section 206V relates to how much notice is required of a non - fixed rent increase and relevantly provides:

(1) A site owner must give a site tenant at least 60 days notice in the prescribed form of a proposed rent increase under -

(a) a site agreement; or

(b) a proposed site agreement that is to replace an existing site agreement;

(2) A notice of a proposed rent increase under subsection (1) may only provide for one rent increase.

(3) The notice of a proposed rent increase must include a statement informing the site tenant of the site tenant's right under section 206W to apply within 30 days after the notice is given to the Director to investigate and report on the proposed rent.

........................................

(4) A rent increase in contravention of this section is invalid despite anything to the contrary in the site agreement.

.........................................

1. Section 206W provides that a site tenant may complain to the Director about excessive rent and relevantly sets out:

(1) A site tenant may apply to the Director to investigate and report if the site tenant has received a notice of a rent increase and the site tenant considers that the proposed rent is excessive.

(2) An application under subsection (1) must be made in writing within 30 days after the notice of the rent increase is given.

(3) As soon as practicable after receiving an application, the Director must-

(g) carry out an investigation; and

(h) give a written report to the site tenant and a copy of the report to the site owner.

(4) The report of the Director must -

(a) include a statement informing the site tenant of the site tenant's right under section 206X to apply to the Tribunal for an order in respect of the proposed rent; and

(b) take into account the matters referred to in section 206Y(3).

1. Section 206X relates to an application to (the) Tribunal about excessive rent and provides that after receiving a report from the Director under section 206W, the site tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring the proposed rent excessive and that such application must be made within 30 days after the site tenant receives the Director's report.
2. Section 206Y deals with what can the Tribunal order and relevantly provides:

(1) If an application is made under section 206X, the Tribunal may -

(a) make an order -

(i) declaring the proposed rent excessive; and

(ii) directing that for the period specified in the order the rent must not exceed the amount specified in the order; or

(b) dismiss the application.

(2) The Tribunal must have regard to the Director's report obtained under section 206W in determining the application.

(3) The Tribunal must make an order declaring the proposed rent excessive if it is satisfied that the proposed rent is more than that which should reasonably be paid by a site tenant having regard to -

(a) the rent payable for a similar Part 4A site in the Part 4A park;

(b) the rent payable for a similar Part 4A site in a similar Part 4A park in a similar location;

(c) the state of repair and general condition of the Part 4A site and the Part 4A park;

(d) any variation in the cost of providing facilities or services that the site owner provides;

(e) any changes in the rent and the condition of the Part 4A site or facilities in the Part 4A park since the site tenant first occupied the Part 4A site and since the last rent increase;

(f) the number of rent increases (if any) in the preceding 24 months, the amount of each rent increase in that period and the timing of those increases;

(g) any improvements made to the Part 4A site which should not result in an increase because they were made by the site tenant;

(h) the terms of the existing or proposed site increase (if any).

1. In the site agreement, there is no reference in definitions to rent but there is reference to a site fee. Site fee is defined as the site fee specified in the Schedule as adjusted or reviewed from time to time.
2. As earlier noted, the commencing site fee in the Schedule for Ms Hayse was $142 per week and for Mr and Mrs Dyer was $173 per week.
3. Clause 3.2 of the site agreement relates to adjustment of the site fee and relevantly provides:

"On each Site Fee Review Date the Site Fee will be adjusted using market based factors to determine the Site Fee ("New Site Fee") to be paid from that Site Fee Review Date until the next following Site Fee Review Date, if there is one, or the end of the Term."

Numerous factors are taken into consideration when assessing the New Site Fee including, without limitation:

a.External pricing changes in utilities (where applicable), including:

i Electricity

ii Gas

iii Water

iv Garbage Collection and Disposal

v Council Rates

b.Changes to the cost of Insurance for the Park

c Changes to the cost of employing staff to maintain and operate the Park

d Changes to the cost of running and maintaining park facilities

e The introduction or improvement of park facilities

f Competitor price movements

g General market conditions.

1. Clause 3.3 relates to a Section 206V notice and provides that the site owner must give a section 206V notice to the site tenant on each occasion on which the site fee is to be adjusted irrespective of the manner of the adjustment.
2. The site agreement provides that on and subject to its terms and conditions, the site tenants' rights are to occupy and use their site, have the park home situated on their site, and use the facilities and common areas of the park.
3. The term of the site agreement is not fixed, and it shall continue until terminated but the rights of the parties to terminate the agreement are limited to those prescribed in the RT Act.
4. Although the site agreement refers to 'the site fee' and not to the site rent, the references to 'the site fee' comply with the meaning of 'rent' in relation to a site agreement as defined in section 3 of the RT Act. The site agreement also otherwise complies with the RT Act.

1. The notices sent to the applicants by Park Lane are valid.
2. The central issue which must be decided after having regard to the Director's report, and after considering the evidence presented in relation to each of the factors under section 206Y(3), is whether the proposed site rent of $200 per week for Ms Halse and the proposed site rent of $205 per week for Mr Dyer and Mrs Dyer is excessive because it is more than that which should reasonably be paid.
3. If it is found that the proposed rent is excessive, the Tribunal must then decide the maximum rent that can be charged by Park Lane and for what period and may then order that Park Lane repay to the applicants any excess rent paid.
4. If it is found that the proposed site rent is not excessive, then the applications must be dismissed.

1. It is necessary to substantially reproduce the Director's report.
2. Mr King records his first visit to the property as 11 May 2023 and states that other visits followed. The Director's report contains Attachments A to F. Attachment B is the site owner's detailed response provided to Mr King under cover of a letter from Mr Hellings dated 14 July 2023 ('the Park Lane response') in relation to the factors in section 206Y(3) and the rent increase.
3. In the Director's report, when purporting to refer to each of the factors (a) to (h) in section 206Y(3) of the RT Act, Mr King has not used the wording of the RT Act. He has omitted any reference to Part 4A when referring to the site and has used the term 'caravan park' instead of 'Part 4A park'. Additionally, his numbering of the factors is incorrect in part and one factor has not been considered at all. Relevantly, the Director's report states:

i. Section 206Y(3)(a): The rent payable for a similar site in the caravan park:

- within the Caravan Park there are two rates, being $205 for two occupants and $200 for one occupant and it consists of 36 homeowners.

ii.Section 206Y(3)(b): The rent payable for a similar site in a similar caravan park in a similar location:

-the Park Lane response identified two properties that it believed were comparable to it, being Aviva in Kangaroo Flat (Aviva) and Bendigo Lifestyle Village in Marong (Bendigo LV).

- Parkside Residential Village (Parkside) is the only comparable property to Park Lane and therefore Parkside was the only caravan park [Mr King] visited other than Park Lane.

-Aviva is not comparable to Park Lane as it is not combined with a Tourist Park and its primary purpose is that of a Part 4A Residential Retirement Village.

- the [Park Lane response] stated that Bendigo LV is 15.3 kms from Bendigo, Park Lane is 6.7 kms from Bendigo and Parkside is 8.7 kms from Bendigo.

-as access to retail outlets must also be considered for comparison purposes, Bendigo LV is not a comparable property to Park Lane due to the location of Bendigo LV.

In relation to Parkside:

-it is located at 293 - 297 Midland Highway, Epsom and is part of Gold Nugget Tourist Park.

-its rent is $166.

-there are 28 Part 4A sites within Parkside.

-Parkside has its own entry via Marks Road, Epsom, which entry is controlled by a motorised sliding gate requiring a passcode. This area is also covered by video surveillance and to gain entry to the residential area of Parkside, a person is also required to supply a code once again for the boom gate.

-this is to be compared with entry to Park Lane which is through the main caravan park entry and then via a gravel road. There is a sign indicating that entry beyond that point is for residents only but it is alleged by the residents that this sign is not a deterrent to children riding bicycles and the like during peak holiday times.

-the size of the rental sites within Parkside are approximately 225 sq. metres whereas two sites measured within Park Lane were approximately 195.5 sq. metres.

-power is separately metered at Parkside and charged at the Essential Services Commission (ESC) mandated rate, there is no charge for water or sewer and there is no Deferred Management Fee (DMF).

-Mr King had carried out 12 rent assessment inspections in the month preceding the Director's report. From his knowledge of a similar caravan park in a similar location, $166 per week may currently be obtained.

iii Section 206Y(3)(c): The state of repair of the general condition of the site and the caravan park:

-From observing Park Lane on 11 May 2023, the entry to the residential park was through the main entrance of the Tourist Park via a gravel road, which was dusty, and then, on another day, had water - filled potholes.

- the roads within the residential park at Park Lane were constructed from bitumen and were in good condition, the rented site is maintained by the renter and overall, Park Lane appeared to be in good condition.

iv.Section 206Y(3)(d): Any variation in the cost of providing facilities or services that the caravan park owner provides:

-the applicants are not aware of variations in cost to the caravan park owner in providing facilities.

- however, in the Park Lane response, Park Lane has provided information detailing the variation in the expenditure incurred by it for the provision of goods and services for the caravan park.

v. Section 206Y(3)(e): Any changes in the rent and condition of the site or facilities in the caravan park since the resident first occupied the site and since the last rent increase:

**-**at the date of the Director's report, Ms Hayse had occupied the site for approximately six and a half years, and Mr Dyer and Mrs Dyer had occupied the site for three years.

**-**Ms Hayse believes that when she first occupied the site her rent was $142 per week and her current rent is $200 per week. She did not provide any other comments.

**-[**the Director's report] records that when Mr Dyer and Mrs Dyer first occupied the site, their rent was $182 per week and their current rent is $205 per week. They also did not provide any other comments.

vi. Section 206Y(3)(ea): The number of rent increases (if any) in the preceding 24 months, the amount of each increase in that period and the timing of those increases:

-there have been two rent increases in the previous 24 - month period, being $9 on I July 2022 and $14 on 1 July 2023.

vii. Section 206Y(3) (f) : Any improvements made to the site which should not result in an increase because they were made by the resident:

-the applicants advised that there are none.

Conclusion

-the site rent increase of $14 per week is excessive.

1. As earlier noted, the Park Lane response is Attachment B to the Director's report.
2. The covering letter from Mr Hellings to Mr King dated 14 July 2023, omitting formal and irrelevant parts, read:

I am writing on behalf of Park Lane in response to the recent inquiry from Consumer Affairs Victoria regarding the site fee increase at our Part 4A park. We understand the concerns raised and appreciate the opportunity to provide further context and clarification.

The decision to adjust the site fees was not taken lightly and was made after careful consideration of a range of factors. We are fully aware of the provisions of Section 206 (Y)(3) of [the RT Act], and we believe that the increase is justified and in no way excessive when these factors are taken into account.

In the broader context, it is important to consider the unfortunate events that have unfolded in Bendigo's caravan park sector in recent years. The closures of the Central City Caravan Park in 2016 and the ongoing issues at the Avondel Caravan Park in Maiden Gully have been, at least in part, due to unsustainable pricing models. These closures have resulted in hundreds of people being evicted from their homes, a situation that we are committed to avoiding.

Our goal is to ensure the long - term sustainability of our park and the security of our site tenants. The fee increase is a necessary measure to maintain the quality of our services and facilities, and to prevent the unfortunate circumstances that befell the aforementioned parks.

In the following sections of this letter, we will present a detailed argument that addresses each of the factors outlined in the [RT] Act, demonstrating that the increase is reasonable and necessary for the continued provision of high - quality services and facilities to our site tenants.

......................................

1. In relation to the Park Lane response, for ease of reference, each of the factors will be repeated in a heading format. However, unless necessary for context, wording in the response that was reproduced from the Director's report will not be repeated.

206Y3(a) the rent payable for a similar Part 4A site in the Part 4A park:

-the Park Lane pricing model for the weekly site fee within the park is not variable based on the size or location of the site.

-however, it has a variable pricing model based on the number of occupants per site resulting in couples being charged an additional $5 per week .

-this pricing model is a direct consideration of the additional wear and tear on communal facilities caused by an increased number of occupants on each site and also factors in the additional water usage by the occupants as water usage is not a metered facility in Park Lane and therefore these costs are not able to be passed on directly to the users.

-Park Lane's pricing structure also incorporates an above - market discount on electricity daily supply and kwh usage rates for its homeowners which reduces the overall cost of living within the village and is designed to allow its homeowners to maximise their rental subsidies and to take advantage of the lower GST that applies to rental charges.

-Park Lane does not charge a DMF and the weekly value of the electricity discounts and rates from 1 July 2023 incorporated into the weekly site fee of $200 for singles and $205 for couples is $3.64.

206Y3(b) the rent payable for a similar Part 4A site in a similar Part 4A park in a similar location:

- a comparison is made of Park Lane with each of Parkside, Aviva and Bendigo LV.

-Park Lane and Parkside do not charge a DMF but Bendigo LV and Aviva each charge a DMF on top of the weekly site fee.

-the DMF covers long - term community maintenance costs but is not charged during a resident's stay. It is deferred until the resident leaves the community, at which point the DMF becomes payable.

- the DMF is an important consideration in the overall cost as when this cost is apportioned as a weekly value, it significantly increases the weekly cost of occupying the site. When calculating the DMF on the current average purchase price and spreading the cost over 10 years (the industry average is between 7 and 10 years), the DMF adds a cost of $136 per week at Aviva and $89 per week at Bendigo LV.

- Park Lane site fees include all water usage charges but in contrast, both Aviva and Bendigo LV, in addition to the DMF, also pass on to their homeowners all water usage charges on top of their weekly rental components.

Further individual location comparisons follow:

Park Lane

**-**its weekly single's site fee is $200 and its weekly couple's site fee is $205. Any increase is based on market review. It does not pass on DMF costs or water charges so the real weekly cost for a single remains at $200 and the real weekly cost for a couple remains at $205. When considering home options and pricing, Park Lane homes start at $360,000.

**-**Park Lane is closest in distance to Bendigo, being 6.7 kms away. It is combined with a Tourist Park and has a community room, spa and bowling green which are residential only facilities. It has a swimming pool, games room and tourism play spaces which are shared between tourist and residential users.

Aviva

- its weekly single's and couple's site fee are each $204.47. Any increase is based on market review. As it passes on DMF costs its real weekly cost for residents is $340 plus water charges. Its entry level home purchase starts at $400,000.

-it is located 8.5 kms from Bendigo. It is not combined with a Tourist Park and, as such, has residential only facilities which include a community room, swimming pool, gym, bowling green, cinema, workshop and vegetable gardens.

-its DMF is capped at 20% of the sale price of a resident's home.

-Aviva has slightly superior facilities to Park Lane, but when considering home options and pricing, the homes at both Aviva and Park Lane are directly comparable in structure and design, The higher entry price at Aviva reflects the additional facilities it offers its residents.

-however, in contrast, Park Lane still provides its residents with a community room, spa, bowling green and shared swimming pool, all at a lower weekly cost and, more importantly, as it does not charge a DMF, when compared with Aviva, it makes the overall cost of living at Park Lane more affordable long term.

Bendigo LV

-its weekly single's site fee is $185 and its weekly couple's site fee is $205. Any increase is based on CPI or 3.5%. Its DMF equivalent is a Deferred Management Commission (DMC) As it passes on its DMC costs, its real weekly cost for singles is $274 plus water charges and for a couple is $294 plus water charges. Its entry level home purchase starts at $387,500.

-it is located 15.3 kms from Bendigo and is combined with a Tourist Park. It does not have residential only facilities but residents and tourists share a swimming pool, spa, and tourism play spaces. It is only in the early planning stages of building a community recreation centre which will include a function room, BBQ area, pool room, craft room and spa.

-its DMC which helps it recover part of its costs for the operation and maintenance of the village upon the sale of a resident's home is capped at 12% of the sale price of a resident's home.

-with Bendigo LV charging the DMC, Park Lane is a more economical choice long term.

Parkside

-its weekly single's site fee and its weekly couple's site fee are each $166. Any increase is based on market review. As it does not pass on DMF costs or water charges its real weekly cost for residents is $166. Its entry level home purchase starts at $230,000.

-it is located 8.7 kms from Bendigo and is combined with a Tourist Park. It has a residential only facility of a community space but residents and tourists share the other facilities of a swimming pool, spa, bowling green, games room and tourism play spaces.

-in offering homes starting from $230,000, Parkside's pricing is below the average market value of homes in Bendigo, emphasising its positioning as a cheap housing option for over 55s compared to the premium residential community models of Park Lane, Bendigo LV and Aviva.

Products offered by it when compared with Park Lane follow:

i.Marketing and Web Presence:

Parkside does not seem to actively advertise or promote itself as a residential village. It is challenging for prospective residents to make an informed decision about the property given Parkside's minimal web presence and incomplete website.

ii. Not a Residential Park:

Parkside's owner was quoted in the Bendigo Advertiser on 3 July 2023 stating: "We are not a residential park.....what we're doing is giving these guys, I'd call it a sanctuary, giving them time to sort themselves out and get their lives in order." This statement appears to position Parkside more as a temporary solution rather than a long -term residential option.

iii Entry Price:

The pricing of the few homes that appear available for sale at Parkside which have a significantly lower entry price than homes within Park Lane suggest that Park Lane offers a superior level of build quality, service, amenities, and overall living experience that is reflected in the pricing.

iv Target Demographic:

Parkside's limited marketing and apparent positioning suggests a strategy that it caters more to prospective residents seeking cheap housing options rather than a comprehensive residential community experience.

v Facilities:

Park Lane has dedicated facilities. Parkside shares nearly all its amenities with guests staying at the co - located Gold Nugget Tourist Park.

206Y3(c) the state of repair and general condition of the Part 4A site and the Part 4A park.

-Park Lane has made substantial changes over the 2022/2023 financial year to its Part 4A site and park which are set out below. These improvements and ongoing maintenance efforts demonstrate Park Lane's commitment to maintaining the high standard of repair and general condition of its Part 4A site and park.

From health, safety and regulatory compliance perspectives, the changes have been:

i new CCTV cameras have been installed across the property and hardware has been upgraded to ensure at least 30 days of recording.

ii in response to homeowner feedback, a new fence was installed to clearly delineate between the tourism and residential sections of the park.

iii a new defibrillator has been purchased.

iv due to increased legislative requirements for swimming pool and spa compliance, a new testing machine has been purchased by Park Lane which necessitates inspections three times per day by its employees and monthly offsite testing.

From the perspective of aesthetics, the following improvements have been made:

i Park Lane has invested $30.000 in a project to upgrade the main road entrance of the property which has also reduced the dust impact from the previous road surface.

ii Six new homeowners have moved into Park Lane which has also bolstered the sense of community.

iii Improvements, including landscaping and infrastructure upgrades, made to the tourism park which is also the entrance to the residential park have indirectly benefited long term residents at Park Lane as they have significantly improved the overall environment.

206Y3(d) any variation in the cost of providing facilities or services that the site owner provides

The site fee increase reflects both the improvements and enhancements made and a necessary adjustment to the rising costs of providing the facilities and services, many of which have increased at a rate significantly higher than the CPI.

The variation in the costs of providing the facilities and services include the following:

Staff costs:

There has been a significant increase in staff costs, a major component of the direct and indirect cost of operating the Part 4A park. Several factors below have driven these increases, necessitating their inclusion in the site fee increase:

i Direct wage increase: the minimum wage for award - based staff, which constitutes the majority of Park Lane's workforce, has risen by 5.75% for the 2024 financial year which directly impacts operational costs.

ii Superannuation guarantee: the increase in the Contribution from 10.5% to 11% equates to an increase in superannuation costs of 4.7%.

iii. Workcover premiums: average premiums for 2024 are increasing from 1.27% to 1.8% which represents an average 42% increase in costs and further affects the increase in staff costs.

Overall, the staff costs of Park Lane for the 2024 financial year are to increase by 6.8%. which is significant and a key factor in the necessary site fee increase.

Utility costs:

Utilities constitute around 10% of the total expenses for the park. Over the preceding four years, utility costs have increased by approximately 44%.

Within the Part 4A park, direct metered electricity usage is passed on to homeowners along with bottle gas costs. Council and water rates and water usage are borne by Park Lane, along with electricity, water and gas usage of communal facilities including the club room and office buildings and waste removal costs.

In this regard, electricity costs have increased by 27% and gas costs have risen by 73% with government warnings of further increases in the 2024 financial year.

Council rates for the 2024 financial year had not been received but these have remained relatively consistent. However, over the preceding few years water rates have increased by 36% and the cost of rubbish removal from the site has increased by 136%.

Regulatory and safety compliance costs:

The recent changes in registration and compliance for swimming pools and spas have directly impacted Park Lane safety costs and therefore the site fee increase.

Changes to the RT Act have required alterations to Park Lane's internal processes for compliance purposes and have increased operational costs.

Safety compliance has also necessitated the introduction of a new group - wide health and safety management role and the implementation of new software to manage compliance and the share of Park Lane's cost amounts to around $30,000 per year.

Insurance costs:

In recent years, Park Lane has incurred significant increases in insurance costs associated with operating its Part 4A park. There was an increase of 45% in its insurance costs in the 2022/2023 financial year. The increase directly related to both property insurance and public liability cover at the Part 4A park.

Property insurance provides coverage for physical damage to, or loss of, property of Park Lane which includes communal spaces used by homeowners and the necessary infrastructure throughout the property and the increase in this insurance cost is largely due to the rise in property values and the cost of potential repairs or replacements.

The increase in the public liability insurance cost is due to the heightened risk assessments and the increasing costs of potential claims.

Other overhead costs:

Overhead costs which include administrative expenses and the costs of maintaining and improving facilities and services have also substantially increased.

206Y3(e) any changes in the rent and the condition of the Part 4A site or facilities in the Part 4A park since the site tenant first occupied the Part 4A site and since the last rent increase

Park Lane essentially reiterated the content of its analysis under 206Y(3)(c).

206Y3(f) the number of rent increases (if any) in the preceding 24 months, the amount of each rent increase in that period and the timing of those increases

Park Lane's primary aim in its business strategy and pricing model is to offer an affordable residential option for the retiree market, particularly those on an aged pension who can benefit from the rental subsidies available to them.

Its site fee increases have only kept pace with inflation over this time when crucially, as particularly noted earlier under 206Y3(d), many of its expenses have increased at a rate surpassing the rate of inflation as measured by the CPI.

206Y3(g) any improvements made to the Part 4A site which should not result in an increase because they were made by the site tenant

The site fee increase does not account for any improvements made by the site tenant to the Part 4A site.

206Y3(h) the terms of the existing or proposed site agreement (if any).

In addressing this factor, Park Lane have referred to Section 206SA(1)(b) of the RT Act and to clause 3.2 of the Site Agreement in relation to it being able to increase site rent by a non - fixed amount.

The compliance of the clause with the RT Act is said to ensure that the site fee remains aligned with market conditions and, as such, provides a fair and balanced approach to fee adjustments.

1. The remaining attachments to the Director's report were copies of the notices, a map of Park Lane, an internet advertisement for a home at Parkside, and photographs taken by Mr King at Park Lane and Parkside.
2. The Director's report makes no separate comment about these remaining attachments.
3. The internet advertisement contains a photograph of a home at Parkside under its emblem and the words "Low Cost Affordable Housing in Bendigo." Under the photograph are a description of the features of the home, a floor plan, the Village Rules, and a map of the Gold Nugget Tourist Park. The sale price of the home is shown as $250,000.

1. In addition to providing copies of the Part 4A site agreement, Park Lane has provided other documents.
2. Included in these other documents are:
   1. historical Centrelink Rent Assistance data from 22 September 2022 and a National Seniors Australia article dated 7 September 2023 relating to an increase in the aged pension rate and several other supplementary payments, including rent assistance, on 20 September 2023, and recording that the amount of rent assistance received depended on how much rent the recipient paid.
   2. tax invoice to Park Lane from AARA Constructions Pty Ltd dated May 2023 for $30,144 for asphalt driveway entrance works.
   3. tax invoice to Park Lane dated May 2023 from AED Authority for $2,495 for a defibrillator.
   4. tax invoices to Park Lane from Hume & Iser dated February and April 2023 for pine sleepers and cement totalling $826.96.
   5. tax invoices to Park Lane from Surdex Steel dated March 2023 for $673.80 for galvanised iron.
   6. tax invoices to Park Lane from Live Action electrical contracting dated June and September 2023 totalling $65,191.50.
   7. tax invoices to Park Lane from Harrison Plumbing and Gas Services dated July and September 2023 totalling $44,925.83.
   8. tax invoice to Park Lane from Hopley Recycling dated July 2023 for $101.70.
   9. tax invoice to Park Lane from Reece Australia dated June 2023 totalling $838.54.
3. A further document from Park Lane was a letter from Honan Insurance Group providing information about insurance costs relating to the property for 2021/22, 2022/23, and 2023/24. The body of the letter then reads, omitting formal and irrelevant parts, as follows:

Bendigo Park Lane insurance premium costs have continued to rise from 2020. These material cost increases have been greater for Bendigo than industry averages, impacted by idiosyncratic variables including:

-high claims costs across the tourism and accommodation sector nationally.

-catastrophic claims costs incurred throughout Victoria, in particular regional and high country.

-reduced insurance capacity globally for the industry.

-claims inflation across the sector.

The table below outlines year on year insurance costs for [the property]. Management Liability, Public Liability and Excess (Public) Liability are group premiums with an allocation of approximately 15 - 18% allocated to [the property] on risk profile."

1. The table for each of the three annual periods then showed insurance costs for Property Insurance as $17,089.46, $23,136.00, and $29,013.41 respectively. For this insurance Park Lane was responsible for the full amount.
2. The table then showed for each of the three annual periods and in respect of which Park Lane was allocated 15-18%, insurance costs for Management Liability as being $4,525.66, $9,680, and $9,680.03 respectively, insurance costs for Public Liability as being $17,820.00, $62,811.44, and $72,957.92 respectively, and insurance costs for Excess (Public) Liability as being $3,564.00, $23,659.12, and $33,499.68 respectively.

1. Ms Hayse gave evidence which relevantly included:

1. she had read the Director's report and the Park Lane response. 2. she understands that every year the residents "have to have" a rent increase but there must be a limit by what amount. 3. she periodically receives increases in pension entitlements to cover the cost of living. 4. the last increase she had received was $37 per fortnight, $28 of which is now paid to Park Lane due to the rent increase. 5. the balance of $9 per fortnight is unfair and does not cover her cost of living increases. 6. it is unfair that the expenses of Park Lane are for the whole property and not just for the residents, as the residents are "actually" also paying for the tourists' area. 7. she loves living at her site and is very happy with it. It has a house, carport and garden. She maintains her site. 8. she owns a car and drives as shops are not within walking distance. 9. she does not need to travel to Bendigo and does not often do so. 10. she has her own circle of friends at Park Lane. 11. she does not believe that the fence that has been recently built serves any useful purpose as it only runs probably for 20 to 30 metres and does not really block anything. Caravans are parked on the other side on grassed areas. 12. the residents are quite spread out and she does not believe that the tourist park could ever be completely blocked off from the Part 4A park. 13. she believes that the residents are entitled to their peace and quiet but as rental properties are around the Part 4A sites, including her site, there are disruptions experienced by residents from noisy activities on the rental properties. 14. at holiday time when there are more renters and tourists at the property, children often come into the Part 4A park riding on their bicycles or travelling, often unsafely, in pedal carts which are made available by Park Lane. 15. on one occasion she nearly struck a young child when she was reversing her car. Although parents who are camping with their families in a caravan or cabin often let their children wander without supervision, she believes that management of Park Lane should be taking action to tell renters and tourists not to ride through the residential area. 16. there is only one exit and entry to the property which is from the highway and she would like residents to have their own entry and exit. 17. when she entered into her site agreement, she had understood that there was to be another entry and exit established for residents and that all roads at the property would be sealed with bitumen but these outcomes, like other promises, have not occurred. 18. she had been told that the additional entry and exit into the Part 4A park would be constructed at the back of the property where new sites have been built but understands that the additional entry and exit is no longer under consideration. 19. there is no boom gate to secure the Part 4A park at the property and she is not sure whether more security is required 20. although she does not use the facilities, residents do have their own facilities and do not need to use tourist park facilities. 21. a lot of improvements have been to the tourists' area only.

1. since she commenced living at the property, she has not seen any obvious or visible improvements to the residents' area.

1. she is not critical of the bitumen surface of her street but says it looks "dreadful" due particularly to debris from the gum trees arising from a much reduced use of the street sweeper.

1. Aviva is not a proper location to compare with Park Lane as it is a dedicated residential park and is "top class." 2. she has not been to Bendigo LV so she cannot comment about it. 3. she does not know much about Parkside, but Mr Dyer visits friends who live there. 4. she regards the increase in her site rent of $58 per week in the time she has lived at the Part 4A park to be "outrageous."
2. Mr Dyer gave evidence which relevantly included:
   1. he had read the Director's report and the Park Lane response.
   2. he regarded Parkside as far superior to Park Lane as it is all gated and permanent residents have their own "zappers" to move in and out of their area.
   3. all roads are bitumen and there are no dirt areas. The lawns are in good condition and the rent is a lot more reasonable than what he and Mrs Dyer are paying at Park Lane.
   4. Parkside is the most comparable property to Park Lane.
   5. houses at Parkside do not have fences but most of the residents have planted shrubs and installed block out blinds.
   6. the majority of houses at Park Lane do have fences and Ms Hayse and Mr Dyer and Mrs Dyer have fences at their houses.
   7. he agreed with Ms Hayse's evidence about the problems regularly encountered by residents with children camping with their families in caravans or cabins at the property and riding bikes in the residential area and often using the pedal cars supplied by Park Lane unsafely throughout the property.
   8. he also does not believe there have been any real improvements to the residents' area and its facilities since he commenced living there.
   9. he noted that mail is delivered by Australia Post to a box on McIvor Highway but it can remain there for two to three days before being collected by Park Lane staff who have to pick it up from the box, take it to the office and sort it and then put it in individual boxes located on the other side of the property.
   10. frequent complaints have been made by residents about late receipt of mail. he has suggested to Park Lane managers that it would be more efficient and effective to have locked residents' mailboxes located near the highway at the front of the property into which there could be direct deliveries, and the residents could individually unlock their own boxes and collect their mail, but this has not occurred.
   11. since he and Mrs Dyer commenced residency at the property, they have also experienced a high and unreasonable increase in their rent which has significantly eroded the amount of any pension entitlement increases. As a result, he is thinking that it would be more cost effective to sell at Park Lane and to buy a unit in Bendigo even if he and Mrs Dyer will have to pay rates and water charges.
   12. he and Ms Hayse dispute that all other Part 4A site tenants are satisfied with the rent and believe that those who are unhappy about it are too scared to speak up about it. He believes that Mr Hellings should visit the Part 4A park and ask the residents at the community centre about their feelings about the rent.
3. Ms Hayse and Mr Dyer both referred in their evidence to photographs of Park Lane and Parkside. They regarded the photographs as providing a very relevant comparison of issues relating to the entrance gates and the roads at the respective properties.
4. Photographs of Park Lane show gravel roads leading to each of their bitumen streets and the existence of some dirt areas at the property. There is a sign but no gate at the beginning of Ms Hayse's street at the entrance to the residents' area. The sign says "Sandhurst Rise. Residents only from here." However, Ms Hayse and Mr Dyer maintain that this is no deterrent.
5. Mr King had also taken more recent photographs of gravel roads at various locations between the entrance to Park Lane and the residents' area which were handed up by Mr Dyer and formed part of the applicants' evidence. They had been taken on a wet day and did show some water - filled pot holed areas on the gravel roads. Mr Dyer also drives and noted from these photographs that the applicants drive through these areas before they arrive in their bitumen streets.
6. Mr Dyer estimated that when entering the property from McIvor Highway there is a sealed area of only 20 to 30 metres in from the entrance before having to drive on gravel to the back of the property until he reaches his street. He and Ms Hayse did not regard the bitumen recently laid and the new gardens recently installed at the entrance to the property to be of any real assistance to them.
7. Ms Hayse noted from the Parkside photographs the presence of the large motorised sliding entrance gate from the outside road which she regarded as "a great idea" that generated a feeling of security. It was the type of gate that she had understood was to be installed at the back of the Park Lane property as the entrance to the residents' area but had not been.
8. Ms Hayse then noted from the Parkside photographs that they show the signpost for Gold Rush Drive which separates the tourist park from the residents' area with the boom gate located across the entrance to the residential area. Also under the signpost is a sign which says "Private Property. Residents and invited guests only."
9. In reiteration of their views that they do not believe that there have been any noticeable improvements to the Part 4A park since commencing their respective residencies despite what they regard as their 'excessive' rent, Mr Dyer and Ms Hayse also commented that Park Lane has multiple income sources from the residents in the Part 4A park and from the tourists' area, the latter of which also includes the children's play complex at which functions and parties are regularly held.

1. Mr Hellings gave evidence which relevantly included:
   1. Park Lane's site fees are reviewed each year.
   2. when undertaking the reviews, profit and loss figures of the preceding 12 months are examined which involves looking at the expenses which have increased and reasonably apportioning from those expenses the amounts which relate to the residential component of the business.
   3. to arrive at the site fee which it believes is fair and reasonable for all parties, the respondent then balances out what it regards as fair and reasonable in the marketplace given economic factors and the costs of its direct business changes.
   4. one of Mr Hellings' predominant roles in his overall job is to review the pricing and other fees for each of the communities with which he is involved, of which Park Lane is one.
   5. Mr Hellings is general manager of a family business which operates seven holiday parks across Victoria, including Park Lane. His job is not physically located at Park Lane. There are around 300 homeowners, like Ms Hayse and Mr and Mrs Dyer, in the six communities which operate under this same consistent pricing structure applied by the family business to set the site rent for each individual community. The only objections received have been from Ms Hayse and from Mr Dyer and Mrs Dyer.
   6. Park Lane has been under the governance of the family business for 14 years. Mr Hellings has been directly employed in the family business for 12 years, having initially worked across all areas, before undertaking his current role in the last five to seven years.
   7. each of the parks operates under its own company name and corporate entity within the structure of the 'umbrella' family business and each park has its own dedicated operations manager who is responsible to look after the community and other business components within their particular park, which vary depending on the site.
   8. in the overall structure of the family business is a Head of Operations who supports each of the operations managers in their roles and in the maintenance of the standards, facilities, and general upkeep of each of their communities. Each of the operations managers reports to the Head of Operations and has each of their own support team 'on the ground' at each park which includes grounds and maintenance staff and front of house and housekeeping departments.
   9. he does not personally visit each park before each rent review as the overall family business structure has a broad team dedicated to OH&S management, operations management, and marketing who travel around to each park to ensure that it is of an acceptable standard.
   10. however, he does attend Park Lane on occasions for various reasons depending on what is occurring and required there at the time.
   11. he cannot recall when he was last at the property prior to the latest rent increase.
   12. the general expectation is that the Head of Operations attends each park at least once per month and the Head of Operations reports directly to Mr Hellings.
   13. in the last one to two years, there have been a lot of construction and project teams working on project matters at Park Lane connected with the aesthetics of the property.
   14. the operations managers provide weekly reports about what is going on at each of their parks.
   15. Mr Hellings works directly with them about any concerns which are escalated through the Head of Operations.
   16. in respect of each proposed rent increase, for each of the parks, he puts the case together for each reviewed amount for the final approval of the directors.
   17. he had all the information required under section 206Y(3) for Park Lane and compiled the Park Lane response to the Director and he has provided instructions to Securitec in these proceedings.
   18. in relation to the current state of the industry and recent cost impacts, he has never seen costs increase quite as significantly as they have over the last few years, especially with insurance.
   19. additionally, there has been a lot more regulation and administration relating to the running of the business to keep matters properly compliant and functional.
   20. staffing costs have increased considerably including direct wages and superannuation contributions, together with Workcover and payroll costs, and this has been particularly so in the last 12 months and continuing.
2. Mr Findlay then spoke to the written submissions of Park Lane.
3. Relevantly, under headings, these submissions included:

1. upon receiving an application under section 206X of the RT Act, the Tribunal must have regard to the Director's report prepared in accordance with section 206W of the RT Act and to the factors set out in section 206Y(3) of the RT Act.
2. after consideration of the factors set out in section 206Y(3), the Tribunal may make an order declaring the proposed rent excessive.
3. "excessive" is not defined by the RT Act but is defined by the dictionary as "more than is necessary, normal, or desirable: immoderate."
4. the rent increase for Mr Dyer and Mrs Dyer is from $191 per week to $205 per week (7.3% increase), while the increase for Ms Hayse is from $186 per week to $200 per week (7.5% increase).
5. Mr and Mrs Dyer and Ms Hayse are the only site tenants to challenge the validity of the rent increase as "excessive." This alone is compelling evidence that the proposed rent is not excessive.

1. it does not contain a detailed analysis of the factors required by section 206(Y)(3) of the RT Act. It contains some observations regarding section 206(Y)(3)(b) but otherwise contains little to no analysis of the other factors prescribed by section 206(Y)(3).
2. it does not even list section 206(Y)(3)(h), being the terms of the existing or proposed site agreement (if any), and it appears that Mr King did not obtain copies of the site agreements.
3. -it does not detail why Mr King arrived at his determination but merely states that the rent increase is excessive and provides no commentary as to what rent is not excessive.
4. its findings are defective under the RT Act as it finds that the "site rent increase" is excessive. This is not the relevant test under the RT Act. Rather, the relevant test is whether "the proposed rent" is "excessive."
5. it does not properly consider the Park Lane response which contains a detailed analysis of all the relevant factors contained in section 206(Y)(3).
6. it does not consider the inflationary environment in which Park Lane has been conducting business and which formed the basis on which the rent increase was calculated.
7. it incorrectly extracts the sections of the RT Act by making various references to "caravan parks" rather than the "Part 4A park."
8. in consideration of the above, the report does not comply with section 206(Y)(3) of the RT Act and ought not be considered by the Tribunal, or in the alternate, it ought not be given any substantial weight.

1. the Director's report provides no comparative analysis of this factor and how it may or may not impact a determination that the rent is "excessive." It simply refers to the Park Lane response and the plan of the caravan park.
2. the Park Lane response contains a detailed analysis of this factor. Park Lane's pricing model does not differ for different Part 4A sites at the Part 4A park. Its variable pricing model is based on the number of occupants per site.
3. a difference in rates for singles and couples is common practice throughout the caravan park industry with differences usually more significant than $5 per week.
4. a consideration of this factor indicates that the rent is not excessive
5. the applicants consider the increase to be excessive but the relevant factor for the Tribunal to consider is whether the rent is actually "excessive."
6. the remaining site tenants viewed the rent as "normal" and not "immoderate" as they appreciated the current inflationary environment and significant increases in Centrelink Rent Assistance.
7. in the preceding 12 months, three new site tenants have entered into site agreements with Park Lane on the same rate of charges. It is contended that they would not be buying into this Part 4A park if they have been looking at the market and if they thought the rent was excessive.

1. this is the only factor of the Act of which the Director's report details a comparative analysis.
2. however, the Director's report does not detail why, presumably, as a result of such analysis, Mr King arrived at a determination that the rent is "excessive." All it effectively says is that there is another park with a rental of $166 per week.
3. the Park Lane response itself made a very detailed submission regarding three comparable properties in Bendigo.
4. the Park Lane response also contained a detailed analysis of this factor (b) itself but there still has to be a consideration of all eight factors by the Tribunal.
5. notwithstanding this, Park Lane states that factor (b) itself, on a proper consideration, favours a determination that the rent is not excessive. In this regard, it should be noted that:
   1. just because Park Lane charges a rent amount that is more than a similar Part 4A site in a similar Part 4A park in a similar location, it does not automatically follow that the Park Lane rent is excessive.
   2. a similar Part 4A park may:
      1. have a rent which is below market because of the site owner overlooking to review the rent
      2. have many other fees it can charge under its Part 4A site agreement such as a DMF, administration fees, utility fees and other fees. However, no analysis or investigation of the other fees charged by, and the pricing structures of, the other businesses of any other property mentioned or referred to in the Director's report was undertaken in the Director's report
      3. it is extremely difficult to find two Part 4A parks which are similar enough to determine that the rent of one of the two parks is "excessive" because it is simply more than the rent of the other park, However, it appears that the Director's report has done this and made a finding based purely on this factor alone
   3. the Director's report appears contradictory as:
      1. it appears to make its findings solely by comparing the Park Lane Part 4A park to Parkside.
      2. despite basing its report solely on a comparison to Parkside, the Director is heedless in disregarding any comparison of the subject premises with Bendigo LV and Aviva
   4. the Director's report highlights that as Aviva has no tourist component, it cannot be compared to Park Lane. While this may be a relevant factor, no tourist component does not mean that the features of the two properties cannot be compared and contrasted.
   5. Mr King states that Marong (the location of Bendigo LV) is not comparable because of its location, yet it is advertised as "Bendigo LV.
   6. again, Bendigo LV may be compared with its location in relation to Park Lane as a consideration of one of the many relevant factors.
   7. Park Lane maintains that Parkside, Aviva and Bendigo LV are all comparable properties and may be compared and contrasted, despite their differing business models and features
   8. with respect to Parkside, while the applicants submitted in anecdotal evidence that it is of a better standard than Park Lane, the respondent says that this is simply incorrect when the two properties are properly compared.
   9. Park Lane says that Parkside is both of a lesser standard and has a rent which is below market value.
   10. the entry level to purchase a Part 4A dwelling at Parkside is approximately $130,000 less than the entry level for the Part 4A park at Park Lane.
   11. this entry level comparison is a strong indicator that no meaningful comparison can be made between the two sites as an entirely different market segment is being targeted by the two businesses.
   12. Parkside provides a very low - cost housing option while Park Lane provides premium residential housing.
   13. the Director's report states that access to the residential area of Parkside is only through a boom gate, but a map and photographs of Parkside indicate that access through the tourist park is available and necessary for the same traffic as identified in respect of the residents' area of Park Lane.
   14. despite operating a premium residential housing model, Park Lane does not charge a DMF as other premium residential communities do.
   15. as detailed in the Park Lane response, its rent is considerably less than that of Bendigo LV and Aviva when the DMF is factored in.
   16. in addition to lower overall costs of similar villages in similar locations, Park Lane says that it provides a superior offering of facilities for residents
   17. in this regard, Park Lane offers exclusive resident - only spaces such as the community centre, bowling green and spa and shared use facilities within its tourism space that includes a swimming pool, BBQ spaces, fire pit and large playground facilities. There are no exclusive use residential facilities at Bendigo LV, at best only a community space at Parkside, and no tourist park at Aviva. It is comparative evidence that there are no other villages in the area that offer a suite of facilities comparable to Park Lane.
   18. whether or not the applicants subjectively see value in, or actually use, the facilities is irrelevant. Park Lane has a wealth of facilities available for use by residents of the Part 4A park, some of which may be used exclusively and some of which may be shared.

xix. the applicants admitted in their evidence that they have full access to use the facilities located in the tourists' area

1. the Director's report notes that electricity is separately metered and charged at full ESC rates at Parkside.
2. Park Lane offers residents the benefit of a 40% discount on the daily supply charge and a 10% discount on the usage charge for electricity which leads to a comparative average weekly saving of $5.63 for residents.
3. Park Lane also provides a 100% discount on water usage rates, which represents an average saving of $7.13 per week, according to the ESC.
4. consideration of this factor (b) demonstrates that the respondent's rent represents better value for money than Parkside, Aviva and Bendigo LV and therefore indicates that the rent is not excessive.

1. there is limited commentary in the Director's report on this factor and no analysis of how it may or may not impact a determination that the rent is "excessive."
2. the Park Lane response contains a detailed analysis of this factor.
3. in addition to providing a broad range of facilities for use by residents and their guests, the respondent's residents' area and its facilities are well maintained and kept to a good standard. This appears to be accepted by the Director's report when it notes that "overall, the Park appeared to be in good condition."
4. in their evidence, the applicants acknowledged that the roads within the residents' area are sealed roads in good condition.
5. access to the residents' area is through the main entrance which does contain a section of unsealed road. However, the entrance was sealed during the financial year ended 30 June 2023 which represents an overall improvement in the general condition of the Part 4A park.
6. further works to complete the sealing of the road between the entry to the property and the residents' area are planned subject to planning approval by the Council.
7. the invoices provided from the respondent detail the significant investment by it to ensure the condition of the property overall and that its facilities continue to improve.
8. Park Lane has recently installed new CCTV cameras to enhance the security of the residents and their homes in response to homeowner feedback, installed a new fence to clearly delineate the boundary between the tourists' area and residents' area, invested in a new defibrillator to enhance the safety of all residents in emergency situations, purchased a new testing machine for the pool and spa to ensure safety of all residents, expended $30,000 in upgrading the main road entrance to the property to increase safety and to reduce dust, and invested a further $100,000 in the then current year in roads overall with further works planned. It has also welcomed six new homeowners to bolster the aesthetics of the Part 4A park and its sense of community and it has completed various landscaping and infrastructure upgrades.
9. in response to various matters raised by the applicants' evidence, the respondent submits:
   1. several points raised were either trivial in nature, irrelevant, and/or general comments of the applicants which do not persuasively provide any proof of the state of repair and general condition of the Part 4A park as required by legislation.
   2. in relation to the issue of street sweeping, while it is minimal and not relevant to the rent issue to be decided, the respondent has noted it and will follow it up with the property's management to ensure that it again is regularly undertaken.
   3. the relevant question in these proceedings is whether the rent is "excessive" and not whether the applicants would have completed capital works at the Part 4A park in the same manner that Park Lane has.
   4. the applicants complained that the Part 4A park cannot be accessed through a secondary entrance at the rear of the Part 4A park. While it is unclear how this would have any impact on the rent, the respondent notes that the applicants have not previously objected to it despite there never having been a secondary entry to the park.
   5. additionally, the respondent previously explored whether it could establish a secondary entry at the rear of the park but the Owners Corporation which owns the adjacent land objected to permitting the secondary exit point.
   6. the applicants made various comments about the utility of the fence erected by Park Lane in the preceding 12 months. While they may not subjectively see the fence to be of value, it is undeniably an improvement of the facilities of the property when considered objectively. The fence was installed to improve the amenity of the residents' area and additionally with further development of the fence in the future, the fence will prevent access to the residents' area which the applicants have indicated is important to them.
   7. despite the investment in capital works at the property by the respondent which improves the amenity of the residents' area, the applicants appear intractable in recognising any improvement in the facilities at the Part 4A park by the respondent.
   8. the applicants complained that there is no separation between the residents' area and the tourists' area. This is incorrect and has no application as to whether the rent is excessive. Since occupying the property, the applicants have been aware that the property is a mixed - use caravan park, have agreed to the initial rent and have never objected to any rent increases until this one despite knowing this situation.
   9. accordingly, it is difficult to accept how they can now object to this characteristic of the property and then receive a rent deduction.
   10. moreover, the map of the property and the physical signage at the property clearly distinguish between the two areas and prohibit any person other than residents from accessing the residents' area of the property.
   11. the applicants raised that Australia Post do not deliver directly to their sites. This is common practice throughout the caravan park industry and Australia Post generally only deliver directly to a property if it is on a separate certificate of title and is separately rateable.
10. -all of the above relating to factor (c), properly considered, demonstrates that the Part 4A park is in a very good state of repair and in a good condition which in turn indicates the rent is not excessive.

1. the Director's report does not contain any analysis of this factor and how it may or may not impact a determination that the rent is excessive.
2. the Park Lane response contains a wealth of information about this factor but there has again been no engagement with it by the Director's report.
3. the respondent has seen an unprecedented increase in the costs of operating its business.
4. the impacts of the recent Covid -19 pandemic, bushfires and flooding have had a lasting impact on the costs of operating a caravan park.
5. the respondent has seen an increase in costs well above CPI in staff costs, utility costs, regulatory and safety compliance costs, insurance costs and other overhead costs.
6. any prudent operator needs to run a viable business. Park Lane has provided in its submitted documentation the information it has taken into account in assessing rent. It is a considered analysis. The lack of complaints by residents supports that a good balance has been achieved by the respondent in working out appropriate rent increases and maintaining a viable analysis.

1. again, the Director's report does not contain an analysis of this factor or its impact.
2. Park Lane accepts that Ms Hayse's rent has, during her occupation, increased from $142 to $200 per week and Mr Dyer's and Mrs Dyer's rent has, during their occupation, increased from $173 to $205 per week.
3. the absence of any previous challenges indicates that the applicants did not then consider the rent to be excessive until this objection.
4. while the respondent acknowledges that the rent has historically increased in an amount which is not insignificant, it has never been unwarranted, as at all times it has increased the rent only in a consistent, equitable and non - excessive manner.
5. In relation to historical rent increases, the following needs to be noted:
   1. there has been little to no pushback from residents
   2. in relation to Ms Hayse, in particular, the clubroom for exclusive use for residents opened in 2018 which resulted in significant improvement to the facilities available for residents.
   3. in 2019, the rent increased by $11 per week, a significant part of which was because of the respondent adjusting the site fee model. At the same time the discount policies for weekly supply charges and usage fees for electricity was introduced which had a net effective impact of reducing the increased weekly rent.
   4. in 2020, the rent was increased by $9.00 per week as a result of an unexpected and unprecedented increase in fees charged by Coliban Water in the form of a new customer connection fee for each homeowner residing on the site. In good faith, the respondent did not pass on the whole amount of the unexpected costs to the residents despite being entitled to under the RT Act.
   5. as a result of government covid legislation, there were no rent increases in 2021.
   6. in 2022, the rent increase was $10 per week which represented effectively $5 per week increase in rent for each of the two years between 2020 and 2022. It equated to approximately a 2.9% fee increase for each year.
   7. with respect to Mr Dyer and Mrs Dyer the rent of $205 per week is only slightly above $200.44, which is the amount to which the CPI increases alone for the period of their occupancy at Park Lane would have increased their rent, without considering any other factors or costs impacts. Since 2020, Ms Hayse's rent increases have been no more than 0.2% per annum greater than the corresponding rent increases for Mr Dyer and Mrs Dyer.
   8. over the preceding 12 months the Centrelink Rent assistance has increased by $33.20 per fortnight for singles and $31.20 per fortnight for couples. As the rent increase is $28 per fortnight, the rent increase for the applicants is cost negative. This consideration alone, while not relevant as a factor itself, supports that the rent increase is not "excessive" as the rent assistance entitlement is predicated and calculated, among other relevant matters, on available rental evidence.

1. the Director's report again does not contain an analysis of this factor or its impact.
2. the respondent, for reasons already provided by it, maintains that rent increases over the preceding 24 months have been justified.

1. the Director's report does not make any reference to this factor despite being obliged to do so.
2. no copies of the site agreements appear to have been requested by Mr King.
3. the applicants agreed to market rate reviews in the site agreements and in accordance with the RT Act.
4. the respondent again notes there is no DMF and a very different pricing module to comparable Part 4A Parks.
5. accordingly, it appears that the terms of the Park Lane site agreement are much more favourable than the terms of the site agreements of Bendigo LV and Aviva.

1. the Director's report did not provide a full and proper analysis of the factors and is defective at law.
2. once the section 206(Y)(3) factors are analysed properly, both separately and collectively, together with the supporting documents and submissions of Park Lane, the rent cannot be found to be excessive.
3. the proposed rent is no more than that which should reasonably be paid by the site tenants as required by the RT Act.
4. both applications should be dismissed.

1. The parties have put their positions as comprehensively as they can, and it has therefore been necessary and appropriate to provide a more detailed summary of evidence and submissions. I have considered all this material in the manner required to reach my findings.
2. Having done so, on the preponderance of the evidence, I find that the rent is not excessive and is no more than what should reasonably be paid by the site tenants.
3. The Director's report is cursory and falls well short of providing the parties with the nature and extent of information and investigations contemplated by the RT Act. Its numerous defects and shortcomings which have already been identified both significantly diminish its evidentiary value and reduce any weight that I should, and will, reasonably and objectively give to it. Mr King was also not called by the applicants to give oral evidence, so it stands as is. I give minimal weight to the Director's report.
4. In looking at section 206(Y)(3)(a), there is no indication that the overall uniformity in the pricing structure of the weekly rent at Park Lane other than a variation between singles and couples as occupants is, or has been, of concern to the applicants or to other residents over time. I find that this aspect has little to no direct effect on any determination about the rent.
5. I do find the lack of objectors, other than the applicants who represent only two out of 36 sites, to be persuasive evidence of the rent not being excessive. The effect of this aspect is assisted by Mr Hellings having given credible evidence, which is not rebutted, about his involvement in a consistent and reasonable approach to the annual reviews of the site rent.
6. Mr Dyer and Ms Hayse gave evidence that there were other residents who regarded the rent as excessive at Park Lane but were not prepared to communicate their feelings to management. I accept that this is their view, and that their evidence was given honestly, but its evidentiary value is compromised by no other supporting evidence having been called.
7. When considering section 206(Y)(3)(b), it is not clear what constitutes a 'similar' Part 4A site in a 'similar' Part 4A park in a 'similar' location.
8. Location and distance from Bendigo is not a concern for the applicants. In any event, in terms of regional locations, the distances are not significant.
9. In considering factor (b), I find that Park Lane, Parkside and Bendigo LV are 'similar' due to their residential areas each being combined with a tourist park. Even though, on the evidence, there are different pricing and business models, housing entry levels, and considerations about facilities and services between the three parks, it does not prevent a comparison between them.
10. Both Park Lane and Bendigo LV charge higher actual weekly rent for singles and couples than Parkside. For couples, Park Lane and Bendigo LV charge essentially the same amount which is $39 more than Parkside. Bendigo LV charges $19 more than Parkside for singles and Park Lane charges $15 more for singles than Bendigo LV.
11. Despite this, I find that just because Park Lane charges a higher rent than a similar Part 4A park in a similar location, it does not automatically follow that the Park Lane rent is excessive.
12. It is only when dealing with factor (b) that the Director's report provides some evidence about Parkside. However, it does not provide significant evidence. There is no substantive evidence in the Director's report about the separately named tourist park co- located with Parkside including the responsibility for, and manner of, its maintenance, condition and upkeep, or about the interaction between tourists and residents, or about the business model and rent reviews.
13. In relation to Parkside, rather than a comprehensive analysis across the board, Mr King essentially focuses on the entrances and boom gate together with the surfaces of the roads and the rent paid. These are the issues raised by the applicants. The consideration of factor (b) in the Director's report then effectively concludes that from Mr King's knowledge there is another park with a weekly rent of $166. I find that the predominant, if not sole, basis for Mr King's conclusion in the Director's report about the site rent is this lower rent figure. This is insufficient and not persuasive given the number of factors in section 206(Y)(3) that require consideration.
14. In addition to his central involvement in the annual review and fixing of the site fees, Mr Hellings' numerous years working in the mixed - use caravan park industry enabled him to provide credible and unrebutted evidence about what have been the cost impacts on the site fees and their movements, the business and pricing models of the three parks, the specific regional matters affecting them, their house entry level pricing, and the nature and extent of, and access to, their facilities and services.
15. What is then apparent when this evidence is considered in relation to factor (b) is that although its legislative wording requires a comparison between the amounts of rent payable at 'similar' parks, there is a clear need in a proper analysis of the rent to 'look behind' the rent amount and to consider and understand the direct and indirect costs, and their impacts at each park, the parks' target markets, and the overall appeal and values of the properties as a whole and of the parks in particular.
16. Mr Dyer gave evidence, which he acknowledged as his view, about why he regarded Parkside as a superior residential option than Park Lane.
17. However, on the available evidence, I find when considering factor (b) after looking behind the rent figures, that the rent is not excessive at Park Lane. The housing entry level prices for Park Lane and Bendigo LV are significantly higher than at Parkside, which represents higher asset values in these two parks for their site tenants. Further, even though the Bendigo LV and Park Lane rents are more closely aligned, the facilities and services available and accessible to site tenants are superior at Park Lane when compared with both Bendigo LV and Parkside.
18. In relation to section 206(Y)(3)(c), there is no direct evidence given by the applicants that the Part 4A park at Park Lane was not in good condition. It was Mr Dyer's view that Parkside was superior. Ms Hayse, although expressing uncertainty about security and unhappiness about the straying of children into the residents' area from the tourist area, gave evidence that she is very happy with her site and loves living there.
19. The Director's report, although observing dusty areas on the gravel roads leading to the residents' area and, after rain, some water-filled potholes on the gravel roads, expressed the view that the property overall including the Part 4A park was in good condition. There was no criticism of the state and surface of the roads within the residents' area. From my viewing of the photographs of the residents' area, I find that the Part 4A park is in good condition and this is so despite the specific concerns of the applicants about the lack of both a separate entrance to the Part 4A park and the boom gate, and the gravel roads.
20. In relation to these specific concerns of the applicants, a credible reason has been given by Park Lane for the inability to build a separate entrance to the Part 4A park, and no evidence has been given that the boom gate deters tourists from entering the residents' area at Parkside. There is no dispute that improvement works have been undertaken to the gravel roads in the months leading up to the site rent increase and that additional road works are planned and are to continue. I also accept Park Lane's contention that the issues underlying the specific concerns of the applicants existed in past years, but no objections were then made about the site rent. Accordingly, I find that the specific concerns of the applicants do not have any effect on any decision in these proceedings about the site rent.
21. Further to that, and again from the comprehensive evidence on behalf of Park Lane, significant costs have been incurred and expended by Park Lane in the 12 months preceding this rent increase and continuing which have directly improved the condition of the Part 4A park and increased their values to the site tenants as homeowners.
22. These improvements include the new CCTV cameras and upgraded software, the initial stages of the fence between the tourists' area and the residents' area, the new defibrillator, the new testing machine for the swimming pool and spa, the upgrading of the main entrance, and the undertaking of electrical and plumbing works and roadworks, Copies of invoices supporting substantial expenditure for these items have been provided and accord with oral evidence and support submissions. While a number of these expenses include works in the tourist park area, I find that they increase the amenity and aesthetics of the property overall including the Part 4A park. Therefore, I find that factor (c) also supports that the rent is not excessive.
23. When looking at section 206(Y)(3)(d), the evidence given by and on behalf of Park Lane was again ordered, detailed, specific and comprehensive. In addition to the specific expenses under factor (c), considerable evidence of increased staff, utility, regulatory, safety, compliance, insurance, administration and other overhead costs has been provided by Park Lane. I also accept the respondent's evidence that there have been in more recent times prior to the commencement of these proceedings, numerous unexpected and more extensive costs for these items than anticipated at the property overall which have had both a direct and indirect impact on the residents' area including its facilities and services and in the provision to the residents of shared services, facilities, and administration. Again, the evidence in relation to factor (d) is compelling that the rent is not excessive.
24. There is overlap between the matters relevant to sections 206(Y)(3)(c), (d), and (e) and the evidence provided in respect of those matters. This evidence which has almost entirely been provided by Park Lane has been accepted by me in the consideration of factors (c) and (d), I again accept Park Lane's evidence insofar as it relates to factor (e) which also supports a finding that the rent is not excessive. Of relevance, I also find that there have been changes in the condition of the Part 4A park and its facilities since the applicants first occupied their sites and those changes support a finding that the rent is not excessive.
25. Section 206(f) and (h) have been adequately and credibly dealt with by Park Lane. They support a finding that the rent is not excessive. Factor (g) is accepted as irrelevant to the rent in these proceedings.
26. Having found that the rent is not excessive and that it is no more than what the site tenants should reasonably pay, the applications should be dismissed and I have made orders accordingly.