(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; and

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

1. Section 206X RTA provides:

(1) 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.

(2) An application under subsection (1) must be made within 30 days after the site tenant receives the Director's report.

1. In this matter the Director produced 2 reports:

(a) the 16 December report; and

(b) the 3 March report.

1. The application to VCAT was made on 1 April 2025, within 30 days of the 3 March report but more than three months after the 16 December report.

1. The respondent complains that the application was made out-of-time:

[CAV] provided a report dated 16 December 2024. The Applicants therefore needed to apply to the Tribunal by 15 January 2025. On the Applicants' own evidence Housing of the Aged Action Group did not request further information from the Director until 4 February 2025 being long after the expiry of the 30-day period. Any further inquiries to the Director ought to have been made within the required timeframe of the Act not after the expiry of the 30 day period under section 206X. The Act does not allow for the Director to produce a "second report" and allow the Applicants a further period to apply to VCAT. In the Respondent's view, the application is simply out of time ...

1. The applicants submitted that the application was within time, and that there was no reason the Director could not provide a second revised report, or revise a report to ensure it was correct, as occurred in this matter.

1. In my view, the application has been made within time.
2. In reaching this view, it is clear that the rent increase review provisions in sections 206W-Z RTA are intended to ensure a fair and transparent process for rent reviews where a site tenant considers the rent increase excessive. The provisions should be construed in a manner consistent with that purpose.
3. There is nothing in either section 206W or 206X RTA that:

(a) prevents the Director from providing more than one report, especially in circumstances where a report may require clarification or correction, or

(b) only permits a site tenant from applying to VCAT after receipt of the first report of the Director, if more than one is produced.

1. The Director prepared the 3 March report in response to questions raised by the applicants and the report has substantive differences. The making of the report evidences the Director's view that more than one report could be written in response to a site tenant's application. The report also includes information about making an application to VCAT within 30 days, as permitted by section 206X.
2. I note the applicants have applied to VCAT within 30 days of the 3 March report.
3. I find that, after receipt of the 3 March report, the site tenants were able to apply to VCAT under section 206X RTA for an order that the proposed rent was excessive. I find the application was made within 30 days of the report and was therefore made within time.

1. The applicants have provided two written submissions (one prior to the 13 June 2025 hearing and one on 27 June 2025) and oral submissions (at the 13 June hearing) in support of the application.

Preliminary matter - new issues raised in 27 June 2025 submission

1. The hearing on 13 June 2025 was adjourned with the opportunity for parties to provide any additional submissions or evidence. For the applicants, this specifically included providing any further evidence related to the Home Refurbishment Clause ('HRC'), or anything else arising from the hearing. The 27 June 2025 submission did not further address the HRC at all. It addressed some matters raised at the hearing and expanded arguments already made (see sections 5, 6, 7 and 8).
2. The submission also raises new matters, which go beyond the HRC and matters raised at the hearing such as:

(a) whether the deferred management fee (DMF) is compliant with the RTA (section 4); and

(b) the profits of the respondent (section 9).

1. It was not the purpose of the opportunity given to parties to provide further evidence and submissions after the hearing, to allow new grounds of objection and inquiry to be raised. To the extent the submission raises these new matters, there has been no proper opportunity for them to be responded to by the respondent or to be heard by VCAT. To permit them to be raised at this stage of the proceeding and in the manner raised by the applicants would be inconsistent with VCAT's obligation to act fairly.[2]
2. In any event, in many respects, it is not clear how these new matters are relevant to the central question before VCAT, which is whether the proposed rent is excessive.
3. I acknowledge (without expressing any view) that there may be real questions about the validity of the DMF given the recent decision of the President of VCAT in Dowling v Lifestyle Management 2 Pty Ltd (Residential Tenancies) [2025] VCAT 590, handed down since the hearing of this application. However, the validity of the DMF is not a matter before me, and it would not be appropriate that I express any view on this. I note, however, that if the DMF is not valid this would not be a matter that strengthens the applicants' case.
4. Given the concerns I have outlined above, I have placed limited weight on these new matters.

1. The applicants say VCAT should find that the rent is excessive. The applicants say VCAT must have regard to specified matters in determining if the proposed rent is excessive including 'the terms of the existing ... site agreement'. Two specific clauses of the site agreement have been highlighted: clause 8 - the HRC; and clause 10 - the DMF.
2. The HRC relevantly provides:

(a) At least 30 days prior to the Home Owner:

(i) offering to sell or transfer the Home;

(ii) selling or transferring the Home;

(iii) assigning his or her interest in this Agreement; or

(iv) otherwise ending this Agreement,

The Home Owner must allow the Village Owner reasonable access to the Home and the Site to enable the Village Owner to undertake the Home Refurbishment Works (at the Home Owner's cost).

(b) The Home Owner agrees to pay to the Village Owner all costs reasonably incurred by the Village Owner in undertaking the Home Refurbishment Works, plus GST, from the proceeds of the sale of the Home.

(c) If the Village Owner undertakes the Home Refurbishment Works but the sale of the Home does not proceed, then the Home Owner must pay the Village Owner all costs reasonably incurred by the Village Owner at settlement of the eventual sale of the Home.

(d) The Home Refurbishment Works are those works which the Village Owner in its reasonable opinion considers necessary to obtain the best and highest Market Value for the Home. The works may include (but are not limited to):

(i) cleaning, repainting, replacing surfaces with new surfaces, recarpeting or reflooring, making good any damage caused by fair wear and tear; and

(ii) replacing part or parts of the Home including any plant and equipment (such as the stove and the hot water services); and

(iii) removing any part or parts of the Home which were present at the time that the Home Owner purchased the Home or that the Home Owner put into the Home (whether or not with the Village Owner's consent) or that the Village Owner puts into the Home at the Home Owner's request.

1. The purpose of the clause is further outlined in appendix C to the agreement: 'To ensure that the Home Owner pays for amounts that the Home Owner has agreed to pay for Home Refurbishment Works under this Agreement.'
2. The DMF clause relevantly provides:

Subject to this clause, the Home Owner must pay the Deferred Management Fee, plus GST, to the Village Owner if:

(b) the Home Owner dies (or if there are two Home Owners, then upon the death of the last of the Home Owners);

(c) the Home is sold or transferred to any person; or,

(d) (subject to clause 5) the Home is removed from the Site for any reason.

1. The DMF is defined to mean: 'the amount described as such in Item 8(c), being a contribution towards the costs of developing. managing and improving the Village and/or for other purposes decided by the Village Owner from time to time.'
2. The DMF is calculated in item 8(c) as the sum of:

(i) 6% of the Home Sale Price for the first year of the Calculation Period (with any part of that year deemed to be a whole year), plus GST; and

(ii) 3% of the Home Sale Price for each subsequent year of the Calculation Period (with any part of a year deemed to be a whole year), up to a maximum of 10 subsequent years, plus GST.

1. The purpose of the DMF is further outlined in appendix C to the site agreement as '[t]o ensure that the Home Owner makes a contribution towards the capital expenses of maintaining, developing and improving the Village and/or for other purposes decided by the Village Owner from time to time.'
2. The applicants say that the rent increase is excessive when these substantial non-rent costs imposed by the site agreement, each of which impose significant costs, are considered:

(a) the HRC '...would have a cost to the Applicant in the tens of thousands of dollars.'

(b) the DMF is also said to be comparatively high, and the applicants point to other DMF fees highlighted in the CBRE report as being substantially lower than those at the respondent's park.

1. The applicants say the 3 March report, which concludes that the proposed rent increase is not excessive, expressly does not take into account the DMF, and it makes no reference to the HRC.
2. The applicants' written submission of 13 June 2025 provides a succinct summary of their position, and states:

... the cost to the Applicants under their site agreement is tens of thousands of dollars greater than the cost to site tenants in generally similar parks. The difference in cost is not expressed purely in rent, because costs in Part 4A parks are not expressed solely or primarily in rent as they are in rental agreements. The Tribunal is not asked to weigh the reasonableness of other costs under a site agreement but is required specifically to consider the reasonableness of the increased rent, having regard to the terms of the site agreement (among other factors).

The Applicant submits that [3 March report] is substantially correct, in that the proposed rent is not excessive if one disregards the DMF and other terms of the site agreement. However, once the DMF and other terms of the site agreement are considered, it is apparent that the total costs borne by the Applicant under the site agreement will exceed those in comparable parks by tens of thousands of dollars. The Applicant submits it is not reasonable that they pay a rent that is comparable to the rent in generally similar parks, when the other costs payable under the terms of their site agreement radically exceed those in those other parks.

1. The applicants' 27 June 2025 submissions include the following additional matters:

(a) the decision of Hayse v Bendigo Park Lane Holiday Park Pty Ltd (Residential Tenancies) [2025] VCAT 457 was cited as authority that DMFs and other direct and indirect charges should be taken into account when analysing whether the proposed rent is excessive.

(b) the CBRE report should not be relied upon, for reasons including:

(i) the CBRE report states it should not be relied upon by any external party other than the respondent;

(ii) there are references to irrelevant or incorrect provisions of the RTA;

(iii) that rents for comparable properties (which are included in the CBRE report) are only one factor to consider; and

(iv) that there is no analysis of how DMFs are related to market rents.

1. In response to VCAT's questions at the hearing, the applicants were unable to provide information about a comparison between the HRC in the site agreement, and any similar clauses in site agreements for other residential parks. No further information was provided in the 27 June 2025 submissions.

(a) The rent increase was supported by the CBRE report, and reflects rising operational costs, market comparisons with similar parks and the ongoing investment made in maintaining and improving community facilities.

(b) The Director's reports concluded the rent increase was not excessive.

(c) The DMF is not part of the rent, but is a capital based fee that only applies when the home is sold or in certain exit scenarios, which enables lower upfront purchase prices and moderate ongoing rent. The DMF was clearly disclosed at the time of entry. It is not a routine or current charge and does not affect the affordability of the rent payable today.

(d) The HRC:

(i) refers to optional refurbishment works that may occur when a resident exits and chooses to sell their home through Ingenia;

(ii) is not a guaranteed cost;

(iii) is not charged during the tenancy; and

(iv) does not impact the current rent.

(e) There are 139 other site tenants located at the respondent's park who have all accepted and are paying the increased rent (the same rent as the applicants), which shows that the rent increase is reasonable.

(f) The Director's reports provide direct comparisons with other similar Part 4A parks which highlight that the rent payable is similar to other Part 4A parks in the area. The applicants seek to distinguish the rents by stating the other Part 4A Parks do not charge DMFs but no evidence has been submitted to support this.

(g) The respondent's park has substantial facilities and is well maintained. There have been increases in costs in delivering these facilities. When looking at the full picture the rent increase sits well within a reasonable range.

(h) If DMFs were treated as a reduction against ongoing rent, it would distort the cost model and make it harder for operators to offer flexible, affordable housing options. These models are transparent, common across the industry, and operate alongside fair, market aligned rent structures.

CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTERS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 206Y(3) RYA

1. VCAT must make an order declaring a 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 Director's report; and

(b) matters specified in paragraphs (a) - (h) of section 206Y(3) of the RTA.

1. I set out below VCAT's consideration of these matters, having particular regard to the 3 March report and the evidence and submissions of the parties.
2. I have considered the CBRE report, dated 19 September 2024. The report is headed 'Market Site Rent Assessment'. It was prepared for the purpose of the respondent's internal decision making. It was provided to the Director for the purpose of their review and is part of the evidence considered. It contains substantial information about comparable Part 4A parks, and about the respondent's park. While it may contain errors, and these will be relevant to the weight attached to the report, it is clearly relevant.

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

1. The CBRE report states that the market review clause is included in only 56 of the 142 sites at the respondent's park (most of those transacted since 2016). The report does not state the rent paid by site tenants whose agreement does not include the market review clause. The respondent says there are 139 site tenants who have accepted and are paying the increased rent. The rent is:

(a) for one person - $203.91

(b) for two persons - $239.96 (the 3 March report states the amount is $239.34).

1. Ms Greer stated that no other site tenants, other than the applicants, had complained about the increase in rent from 1 January 2025.

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

1. In the 3 March report, the Director's delegate, Tricia Hull, states: 'I conducted physical site visits and online research of four independent Part 4A residential parks within the same local government area and found that three of the four were generally similar to Federation Village.'
2. Although it is not entirely clear, I understand the three (3) similar parks are those parks with more than 130 sites and that include extensive facilities, that is, those which appear to be the most similar to the respondent's park:

(a) Palm Lake Resort - Truganina (fees of $218.00 per week)

(b) Avington - Point Cook (fees of $214.39 per week for one person and $246.87 per week for two persons)

(c) Lifestyle Communities - Tarneit (fees of $220.02 per week for one person and $254.19 per week for two persons).

1. A further village, Ison Village - Werribee, was also noted. It has only 70 long-term permanent sites and less extensive listed facilities. The fees for this park are $189.25 per week for one person and $217.66 per week for two persons.
2. The CBRE report also includes the above parks, noting a different rent range for the Ison Village - Werribee Park ($212.21 per week one person and $214.85 for a couple). It also lists:

(a) Insignia Federation Werribee, a park with 179 permanent sites, extensive facilities, and a site rent range of $203.91 (single) to $239.96 (couple) per week

(b) Insignia Federation Glenroy, a park with 152 permanent sites, extensive facilities and a site rent range that is also $203.91 (single) to $239.96 (couple) per week

(c) Lifestyle Deanside, a park with 255 permanent sites, extensive facilities, and a site rent range of $220.00 (single) to $254.20 (couple) per week

(d) Ingenia Lifestyle Lara, a park with 309 long term sites and located a substantially greater distance from Melbourne's CBD (i.e., not in a similar location), with extensive facilities and a site rent range of $205.00 to $244.00.

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

1. The 3 March report states that the property is 'in a maintained condition and clean and serviceable repair'.
2. The CBRE report states that the overall condition is 'assumed average/good condition', noting the park was constructed 'Circa 2000s-2010s'.
3. The photographs provided with these reports are consistent with this assessment and show a well maintained park.

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

1. Having reviewed the evidence, including the Director's reports and the CBRE report, there is nothing specific referenced or referred to.

(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

1. The applicants first occupied the site in October 2021; at that time, the site rent was $899.17 per month ($207.00 per week).
2. The 3 March report notes the advice of the applicants as to the following increases since then:

(a) first increase from 1 January 2024, with the new rent $943.08 ($217.00 per week) - this is an increase of 4.9%.

(b) second increase (the increase the subject of this application) from 1 January 2025 to $1,040.00 ($239.34 per week) - this is an increase of 10.3%.

1. Both these increases are consistent with the terms of the site agreement.
2. The Tribunal takes note that the Consumer Price Index ('CPI') over the twelve (12) month period to the end of December 2024 was 2.4%.[3] The annual movement for rents for the same period is 6.4%.[4]
3. The CBRE report says that private rents in the relevant local government area have shown an annual increase of between 3.68% and 6.43% in the period 2020-2024, with most of that being in the last 12-24 months.[5] For example:

(a) for a two (2) bedroom apartment, the percentage change in rent between March 2023 and March 2024 is 11.4%; and

(b) for a two bedroom house, the percentage change in rent between March 2023 and March 2024 is 15.8%.

Changes in the condition of the respondent's park

1. The CBRE report outlines recent capital works to the value of $38,000.00 including irrigation works, upgrading glass sliding doors, new gym equipment, pool heating and Wi-Fi.
2. The report also outlines areas where management is 'looking at spending', including further irrigation upgrades, new community building carpets and lounges, outdoor furniture, and roadworks. It is not clear when these works have been or will be carried out.

(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

1. Having reviewed the evidence, including the Director's reports and the CBRE report, there is nothing specific referenced or referred to.

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

1. The site agreement is some 32 pages long and also has attachments. It sets out a range of matters, including:

(a) the site tenant's financial obligations - which include the payment of site rent, utility charges and other charges (including the HRC, DMF and home sale charges);

(b) maintenance obligations of the parties;

(c) use of the village;

(d) home sale;

(e) home refurbishment works; and

(f) DMFs.

1. The purpose of VCAT's consideration of the site agreement is in the context of determining whether the proposed rent is more than that which should be reasonably paid by the site tenant. Rent is relevantly defined in the RTA as 'the amount paid to a site owner by a site tenant to occupy a Part 4A site and use facilities and services' - see section 3 RTA.
2. Therefore, provisions in the agreement that provide for other charges, in particular those that relate in some way to the occupation of the park and use of services and facilities, are likely to be relevant in assessing whether the proposed rent is more than that which should be reasonably paid by the site tenant.
3. It is only the HRC and DMF to which the applicants have drawn VCAT's attention, and it is these that I have closely considered

(a) the charges for home refurbishment works appear to be cost recovery only - paying the costs incurred by the respondent for cleaning, painting, recarpeting, and other refurbishment works when the home is sold; and

(b) there is no certainty that any charge at all will be incurred.

1. The HRC is not something that relates to the occupation of the site or use of service and facilities, and it is not clear how it is relevant to the question of whether the proposed rent is excessive.
2. To the extent it may be relevant, there is no evidence to indicate that this clause is exceptional or the proposed charging excessive or unusual. I was not referred to evidence of other site agreements or other home refurbishments charges that indicated the respondent's arrangements are an outlier or exceptional.

1. Given that a purpose of the DMF is to manage or maintain the respondent's park, it has a purpose analogous to rent, in that it relates to the services and facilities used by the site tenant.
2. Given this, it is in my view the DMF is a matter that is appropriately considered in determining whether the proposed rent is excessive.
3. The purpose of the DMF also goes beyond this, in that it is also put toward the development and improvement of the park. This is relevant to the weight given in considering the DMF in the context of the proposed rent.
4. The CBRE report canvasses DMFs across comparable parks (at part 5.5) and concludes that the DMF at the respondent's park is at 'the top end of the market'. The CBRE report comparison shows the DMF amount for the respondent's park is more than that of the comparable parks - both in terms of:

(a) the formula - in that the respondent's park has a higher yearly percentage (6% as against 3-4%) and cap (36% as against 15-20%)

(b) the DMF paid on an assumed scenario of 8 years tenure ($117,000.00 as against $44,250.00-$94,000.00).

1. One of the comparable parks (Ison), which has the lowest percentage and lowest DMF, may not be directly comparable, as it is a smaller village with less extensive facilities (see paragraphs 54-56 above).
2. The other two parks (Lifestyle Communities and Palm Lake Resort) are more directly comparable. The DMF percentages (4% - as against 6% for the respondent's park) and caps (20% - as against 36% for the respondent's park) are less.
3. The total DMF on the assumed scenario for Palm Lake Resorts ($80,000.00) is 31% or $37,000.00 less. The DMF for Lifestyle Communities ($94,000.00) is 20% or $23,000.00 less.
4. These two parks - which on the evidence before me are comparable villages - also have substantially higher home prices (for Palm Lake Resorts - $399,000.00 to $560,000.00; for Lifestyle Communities $409,000.00 to $474,000.00) when compared to the respondent's park ($220,000.00 to $395,000.00), which is at the lower end. This indicates increased costs for these parks at the beginning (rather than at the end) of the site tenant's occupation. This points to a differing pricing approach in the comparable parks, of which the DMF is one component.

IS THE PROPOSED RENT EXCESSIVE - THAT IS, IS THE PROPOSED RENT MORE THAN THAT WHICH SHOULD REASONABLY BE PAID BY A SITE TENANT?

What is meant by the rent which should reasonably be paid by a site tenant?

1. The expression '[the rent] which should reasonably be paid by a site tenant' is not further defined in the RTA, other than that VCAT must have regard to the specific matters outlined.
2. The Court of Appeal in Email Ltd v Robert Bray (Langwarrin) Pty Ltd [1984] VicRp 2; [1984] VR 16 considered the meaning of 'reasonable rent' in the context of industrial premises built to the requirements of a tenant. Most relevantly, the Court said (at pages 20 and 21):

... [T]he expression "reasonable rental" is not a term of art. It has no fixed or precise meaning. It is of quite a different character to market rental.

In Opera House Investment Pty. Ltd. v Devon Buildings Pty. Ltd. [1936] HCA 14; (1936) 55 CLR 110, the High Court was concerned with construing a provision in a lease which required the lessee to pay to the lessor such rate of interest as the lessor "may reasonably contract to pay on the said moneys". At p. 116, Latham CJ said: "The word 'reasonable' has often been declared to mean 'reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.' The real question, in my opinion, is to determine what circumstances are relevant. In determining this question regard must be paid to the nature of the transaction." Starke J said, at p. 117 "'Reasonable' is a relative term, and the facts of the case must be considered before what constitutes a reasonable contract can be determined."

Returning to this case, we see no warrant for construing "reasonable rental" as "market rental". We first make the obvious point that the parties did not provide for a "market rental" as they so easily could have done. The parties provided for a "reasonable rental". This, in our opinion, means a rental which is reasonable in the light of all the relevant circumstances...

1. More generally, 'reasonable' means agreeable to reason or sound judgement,[6] or fair and proper according to the circumstances.[7]
2. My view is that, in determining whether the proposed rent is more than should reasonably be paid by the site tenant, VCAT should consider whether the proposed rent is reasonable and fair in all the circumstances - having regard to the Director's report and the eight (8) matters specified in section 206Y(3) RTA.
3. In this respect, the proposed rent which should reasonably be paid does not mean the market value or market rental, although this may be a relevant consideration, as reflected in particular in criteria provided for at section 206Y(3)(a) and (b) RTA.

Is the proposed rent more than that which should reasonably be paid?

1. In this matter I am not satisfied that the proposed rent at the respondent's park is more than that which should reasonably be paid by a site tenant.
2. In arriving at this view, I have considered all of the evidence before VCAT, and the relevant submissions of the parties. This evidence is not extensive - primarily the notice of rent increase, two reports of the Director and the CBRE report. The Director's reports are brief, and neither report considers the DMFs of the respondent's park, reducing their utility.
3. The CBRE report, while undertaking a market assessment, does not specifically consider each of the eight (8) criteria VCAT must have regard to in determining if the proposed rent is excessive. The assessment undertaken is, however, substantially more detailed than that in the Director's reports and assists in the consideration of some of the criteria.
4. In arriving at the view that the proposed rent is not excessive, I note:

(a) the Director's conclusion, as evidenced in the 3 March report, is that the proposed site rent increase was not excessive - albeit that conclusion did not take into account the site agreement's deferred management fees. I note that I am required to have regard to this report in determining the application.[8]

(b) the CBRE report, which considered matters including site rents at competing parks, the amenity and standard of features at the respondent's village and the DMF structure compared to competing parks - assessed the market rent as, relevantly, $240.00 per week for couples; this was the fee then proposed by the respondent. In this respect the fee increase aligns with the site rent review mechanism in the site agreement that the applicants and other site tenants have agreed to.

1. The factors I am required to consider do not, on the whole, point to the proposed rent being more than should reasonably be paid by a site tenant:
   • the site rent is the same as that paid by many or most other site tenants. The respondent gave evidence that only the applicants sought a review of the proposed rent increase - this is something that has previously been found by VCAT to be persuasive evidence of the rent not being excessive.[9]
   • the site rent is generally similar to the rent paid at comparable villages, falling between the lowest and highest amounts.
   • the proposed rent increase is substantial, being 10.3% more than the rent payable in 2024. It is an increase that is substantially more than the CPI and somewhat more than the annual movement for rents as reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The CBRE report indicates, at a more local level, that the increase is aligned to, and slightly lower than, rent increases for small apartments and houses in the most recent 12 month period.
   • the respondent's park is maintained, clean and serviceable, and of average/good condition. There also appear to be regular planned capital works for the park, albeit the forward program of works is not substantially detailed in the evidence before VCAT.
   • changes to the rent have been undertaken in a manner consistent with the review mechanism in the site agreement, and this is the second increase in the since October 2022, when the applicants moved to the respondent's park.
   • the respondent's park has a significantly higher DMF when considered against other comparable parks. This will mean that site tenants at the respondent's park may pay higher fees when leaving the park.
   • the comparable parks appear to also have significantly higher home purchase prices, indicating that site tenants pay higher upfront costs for these homes than the homes at the respondent's park. Some of these comparable parks also have slightly higher rents - pointing to increased annual costs for site tenants at these parks when compared to the respondent's park. That one or other of these inputs (the purchase price, rents, or other charges) is higher or lower from park to park points to differing pricing approaches in different Part 4A Parks. It does not lead to a conclusion, of itself, that the proposed rent in this matter is excessive.
2. In my view, the proposed rent is reasonable in all the circumstances. It is not excessive. I am not satisfied that it is more than the rent which should reasonably be paid by a site tenant.
3. Given this view, I will order that the application is dismissed.

[1] The reference to section 155 of the RTA appears to be an error - this a provision related to rent reviews at caravan parks, not Part 4A parks.

[2] Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), sections 97 and 98.

[3] Consumer Price Index, Australia, December Quarter 2024 | Australian Bureau of Statistics, accessed 15 July 2025.

[4] Consumer Price Index, Australia, December Quarter 2024 | Australian Bureau of Statistics, accessed 15 July 2025.

[5] The data is said to have been sourced from the Victorian Government Department of Families, Fairness and Housing.

[6] Macquarie Dictionary online - accessed 15 July 2025.

[7] Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) - accessed 16 July 2025.

[9] Hayse v Bendigo Park Lane Holiday Park Pty Ltd (Residential Tenancies) [2025] VCAT 457, at paragraph 68.