Information on your ownership

A capable and transparent committee helps to:

• Maintain high standards and guest satisfaction
• Protect property values and resale potential
• Keep levies fair and well-managed
• Prevent costly repairs through forward planning
• Avoid disputes and promote harmony
• Secure the resort’s long-term future

a. Principal Units

• Unit Plan 20743 (UP) lodged with LINZ defines the 32 Principal Units (Unit) and areas of Common Property that together make up the Ridge Resort. The plan specifies the location and boundaries of each Unit in the horizontal plane, as well as its vertical extent, as recorded in the height-limit table on the face of the plan.

• Each unit issued a separately identifiable record of title based on the definition shown on the UP.

• Units numbered 17–27 are classified as Non-Timeshare Units, commonly referred to at The Ridge as Private Units. (The Act refers to these Private Units as “a Principal Unit that is not a timeshare unit”.) These typically have one or only a few owners – usually owned within one family.

• The Units numbered 1-8, 11- 16 and 28-32, are termed Timeshare Units. Each of these have 51 Owners, each of whom are issued their own unique record of title, recording that they each own an undivided 1/51st share of their specific Unit.

• Units 9 and 10 are Future Development Units . Records of title have been issued for this interest even though these units have not been constructed. The owners’ rights and obligations are outlined in the UTA.

b. Common Property

● Areas not part of any unit are common property.

● Common property is collectively owned by all unit owners via Body Corporate. At the Ridge Resort this includes all outside areas and certain indoor areas including the owners lounge and the office. No Right of Title is issued for common property.

Ownership Statistics Download

A number of further questions have been raised since the AGM. The responses below are intended to clarify the Sub-Committee’s current thinking and address common concerns.

Q1. Do the motions, particularly Motion 16, suggest that change is imminent?

A. No. At this stage, no physical proposal has been developed. The Sub-Committee’s current view is that the process would involve a two- to three-year planning phase, followed by a further implementation period of around two years if owners ultimately decide to proceed. As a priority, the Committee also intends to consider whether options may be available for owners who wish to exit sooner.

Q2. Why is funding needed at this early stage of planning?

A. Funding was requested so that appropriate professional advice could be obtained before any proposal is developed. This advice would help ensure that any future proposal is legally, practically, and economically achievable. Although Motion 16 was not passed, the Sub-Committee will consider other ways to obtain the advice needed.

Q3. Could non-timeshare, private owners have the land “sold out from under” their units by timeshare owners?

A. No. Any proposal would require at least 75% approval from non-timeshare owners. They are equal partners in any decision affecting the future structure of the property.

Q4. If a developer bought all timeshare units and the office area, would restructuring still be needed?

A. Possibly. If a developer bought all timeshare interests, they would own more than one thousand unit titles. However, the existing Body Corporate structure would remain, including joint ownership of the common property with non-timeshare owners. It is also important to note that the office area is common property.

If a developer intended to redevelop the property, they would still need to cancel the Unit Plan. That would bring the process back to many of the same issues currently being considered.

Q5. Why is a company structure for the timeshare being considered?

A. Some New Zealand timeshares have found that recent changes to the Unit Titles Act, particularly those relating to Body Corporate management, are not well suited to timeshare arrangements. As a result, some have already transitioned to a company structure.

Reported benefits of this approach include:

• easier and less costly transfer of weeks, as shares rather than individual titles;

• the ability to charge the same amount for all weeks;

• no impact on KiwiSaver first-home withdrawal eligibility from owning a week;

• the ability to sell interests to overseas purchasers; and

• increased interest and sales activity reported by at least one timeshare that has made the transition.

No decision has been made. A company structure is only one option that may be explored further as part of the wider restructuring investigation.

Q6. Are timeshare owners’ title protections being placed in the hands of a small number of company directors?

A. This is a valid concern. At this early stage, the Sub-Committee suggests comparing that possible structure with the current position for timeshare owners. Note, this issue applies to timeshare owners only . A Company Structure is unlikely to be suitable for Non Timeshare Owners as more than likely they require a Title for Mortgage Purposes.

For timeshare owners, the practical protection provided by a unit title should be considered in light of the current lack of resale value. Usage rights are already governed by a lease and related agreement, both administered by the Management Company, rather than by the title alone. Similar protections could potentially be incorporated into a company constitution. Directors may also have responsibilities to shareholders that provide protections comparable to, or greater than, those currently available under the Unit Titles Act.