Older Australians are being turfed out of their homes.

We aren't perky and adorable. We don't provide appealing stories about needing to move to whoop whoop because we've been squeezed out of the housing market. Instead, we've been squeezed out of safety and security. Now the federal government must step in.

In a shocking series of stories by the ABC and Fairfax, it's clear at least one major player in the business of sheltering our senior citizens may cast itself as playing by the rules, but its conduct raises questions about whether those rules are moral or ethical. The investigation uncovered harrowing stories of financial loss by those who bought into retirement villages, in particular those owned by the company Aveo.

Like many others, is that company just exploiting the old and vulnerable, who are in a hurry to find safety and security?

The stories were published just days after the Australian Law Reform Commission released its report Elder Abuse – A National Legal Response, from its inquiry into protecting the rights of older Australians. The summary makes terrifying reading for ageing Australians. It makes 43 recommendations for law changes to protect them from a range of horrors, from neglect, through physical, sexual abuse and emotional abuse, to financial abuse.

In reading the catalogue of harms, we see what happens to those of us who've passed the peak of our powers. We lose control, and sometimes give up control, over the very thing that makes us feel safe: our homes.

About 7 per cent of older Australians live in retirement villages. It's a disappointing percentage for those who want to make money out of housing the elderly – and the figure has barely moved in years, although it is 7 per cent of a growing number of Australians.

This country is getting older. Over the past two decades, the proportion of our population aged 65 years and over increased from 12 per cent to just over 15 per cent. That in itself is a dramatic surge but, if our health holds out, as the rest of the baby boomers catch up to 65, the proportion will be even bigger. We are old, getting older and getting better at surviving – the good fortune of increased life expectancy.

But we are hopelessly unprepared for life with bad knees and dodgy eyesight. We think about downsizing from the family home because our kids have left home. But we don't think about sizing ourselves up for a particular kind of home that meets the needs we have when we become less able to manage physically. And we need to do that about 20 years earlier than we are now. Instead, we make those decisions under pressure.

Councils on the Ageing chief executive Ian Yates says too many people start too late. They leave it to the last minute. The last unit in the prestigious complex in the suburb they've always wanted. They spent years agonising over super but are now about to spend some of their precious lump sum in a big hurry. "It can lead to misunderstanding and problems, most of all because the contracts are so complex."

He's dealt with many people who've had advice from lawyers and financial planners. But "90 per cent of those lawyers and financial planners don't understand retirement village contracts", he says.

That means people end up paying sign-on fees, maintenance fees and what can be called deferred-maintenance fees, more usually called exit fees. And there's plenty of trouble there. For some strange reason, buying into a retirement village isn't like buying any other kind of real estate. You are likely to be charged a lot when you buy – but not get anything like that amount when you sell. With Australia's resilient property market, that kind of real estate deal seems too weird for words. It should work this way: you buy, the unit increases in value, and you get some of that benefit. Instead, if you leave or die, you may end up paying for the privilege.

Yates says too many retirees who bought into villages think they bought real estate. Instead, it's just a licence to occupy and the responsibility to keep up with all the fees, all the time. If a resident of a retirement village dies, it can take time to settle all the fees. He recommends buying in an area of high demand – but that demand can change, too. Some us move into these villages at 60 (most enter in the mid-70s) and can expect to live another 20 or 30 years.

On top of the various policies and procedures of the companies that own the villages are the different requirements of state legislation. "It's seen as real estate and therefore it's seen as a state jurisdiction, but what we need is a national approach to retirement villages," Yates says.

It's hard to imagine this federal government intervening to save older Australians. But there's one reason it might. The retirement village industry is aimed at individuals of high net worth; people with a reasonable amount of capital.

With Derryn Hinch leading the pack at 73, federal politicians are just made to order.

Jenna Price is a Fairfax Media columnist and academic at the University of Technology Sydney.

Twitter: @jennaprice

Facebook: facebook.com/jennapricejournalist