Photo: Photo / 123RF
What seems like a small dispute over name-calling emails has shone a spotlight on the power imbalance residents of retirement villages can face.
The case of the (possibly) boozy barbeque at a Christchurch retirement village made for interesting, if confusing, reading.
It is the only case to come before the Retirement Commission's disputes panel this year.
Five residents - acting for themselves - versus the owners of their retirement village, who had to foot the bill for a panellist to sort things out, and who also paid for a lawyer.
It's not clear what happened on Christmas Day 2023 - residents were accused of drinking in an alcohol-free communal area, they refuted that, accusatory emails flew and the residents claimed they were being treated like children, and wanted an apology.
They didn't get one, and panellist David Carden said in his decision "this whole event has been unsatisfactory for all".
The episode has shone a light on the imbalance in power between retirement village owners and their residents.
There are about 63,000 people living in such villages in New Zealand, and very few of them complain to the extent that's happened in the Christchurch case.
"For them to complain, they're obviously very angry and disappointed," says Grey Power Federation national president Gayle Chambers.
"And I think they're very brave to take on the system.
"I've never known a retirement village to have a no-alcohol policy in common areas, and in fact most retirement villages encourage people to come along to happy hour, in the common rooms, and to meet their friends, have a glass of wine ... because it's all about social isolation and trying to minimise that."
Chambers says retirement villages have to tread the line between keeping residents safe in their environment, and letting them have their freedom, and it is important they are happy and do not feel they are in some sort of a facility.
But sometimes the rules that are designed to keep them safe get in the way of a happy life.
There are reforms in the wind, designed by the Retirement Commission to make life fairer for residents, but they appear to have been both slimmed down by the current government and booted into the next Parliamentary term.
Consumer NZ chief executive Jon Duffy is backing the overhaul of regulations, saying his organisation has taken action under the Fair Trading Act in the past to protect residents from unfair terms in their contract, called an Occupation Right Agreement (ORA).
Before signing these they must be checked out by a lawyer and Duffy says plenty of residents go into it with their eyes open.
"For those residents there shouldn't be any surprises," he says. "But there are plenty of examples of residents who assume things will be similar to what it was like when they owned their house freehold, or what it was like when they were a tenant, and there are some fundamental differences."
He says you would think you would be able to gather for a beer in a communal garden with fellow residents on Christmas Day, "but actually having looked at the industry a fair bit, there are lots of kind of arbitrary bans on things you'd think you'd be able to do".
He says living in a retirement village is more like living in a student hostel, "where you've actually got rules in place, that in some instances are there to protect the wellbeing of residents but in some instances are there to protect the liability of the operator, and unfortunately those rules will sometimes place restrictions on your personal freedom as a resident".
There is a code of practice under the Retirement Act that requires operators to treat residents with courtesy and respect.
"I think for the most part that happens," he says.
On The Detail on Monday, Duffy talks about the three reforms that would help shift some of the balance when it comes to more pressing issues in this arena.
The big one is the amount of time villages can take to sell your home once you have exited. Residents take no capital gains out of their properties once they have sold and have to sell back to the village, but in some cases they or their next of kin have been waiting long periods to get their money back out of that real estate.
Often there is a reason - the market has slowed or there is refurbishment to do - but Duffy says a delay of more than six months is excessive.
"That can put people in serious financial jeopardy," says Duffy. "The current situation is untenable."
The reforms would introduce a time limit.
An annoyance that seems trivial but that Chambers and Duffy agree is an issue that comes up often is the status of chattels such as appliances in the apartments or units.
They belong to the village - but residents are responsible for getting them repaired, even if they are just broken down from old age. They often must use an approved repairer, who often comes at a premium price.
"It needs to be addressed," he says. "It's too far tilted to the benefit of the operators."
A third change that Duffy says is needed is a better disputes system, and the Christchurch case has shone the spotlight on that.
"Going from an exchange of emails, to trying to mediate, through to what is a really legalistic process... that's just not working. A more accessible disputes system that's making better use of alternative dispute resolution to resolve issues would be really beneficial."
Check out how to listen to and fol low The Detail here.
You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
