Retirement village residents lodged 168 complaints in past year, one family waited three and a half years for village payout

The lobby group for more than 53,000 retirement village residents handled 168 resident complaints last year, including a three-and-a-half-year repayment dispute after a resident died.

Retirement Village Residents Association vice-president Di Sinclair is the complaints co-ordinator for the entity, which represents those living in such properties and provided those numbers.

Residents could get speedy resolutions to grievances by issuing dispute complaint notices, she said, and that had helped in many cases.

“I dealt with 168 complaints from retirement villages throughout New Zealand last year,” Sinclair said in response to a Property Insider column in the Herald on June 9.

That asked why there hasn’t been a single formal dispute decision published on the website of Te Ara Ahunga Ora the Retirement Commission this year.

Last year, only two decisions were published there.

Yet more than 53,000 people live in such properties.

Sinclair said the three-and-a-half-year payment dispute involved women only known as Helen and her sister Alison.

They were owed money by a village owner after their mother died.

Communication from the operator, who was not named, was minimal and there were few updates, Sinclair said.

After the association was contacted, a formal complaint was lodged for the full capital sum and interest.

Within a week, that money was repaid but not any of the interest, she said.

Sinclair said complaints came to her instead of the commission.

“When people ring the commission with their complaints, the commission refers them to me. The commission receives and publishes only the results of any cases that go to the dispute tribunal.

“When I withdraw a dispute notice, nothing gets published because it didn’t reach the dispute panel,” Sinclair said.

Privacy could be another reason why disputes go to the association instead of the commission.

“One possible explanation is that operators are understandably reluctant to have disputes aired in a public forum.

“Disputes panel hearings are open to the public and the media, and they provide a level of transparency that many parties would prefer to avoid,” Sinclair said.

This year, she expects about the same number of complaints.

Some were relatively straightforward and resolved via a phone call, advice, or guidance, she said.

Others were more serious and complex.

“A significant proportion involve lengthy delays in the repayment of a departing resident’s capital sum following death or permanent departure from the village,” Sinclair said.

“The longest case I have personally dealt with involved an estate waiting three and a half years for repayment.”

During the past few years, association legal counsel Anton Coetzee and Sinclair had assisted residents and families in issuing formal dispute notices against village operators.

“What is interesting is that every one of those disputes was resolved within a matter of days after the notice was issued,” Sinclair said.

Residents were generally reluctant to complain.

Many retirement village residents who are elderly did not have the emotional or physical resilience to cope with prolonged disputes, she said.

The stress of ongoing arguments, much correspondence, and the prospect of a formal hearing could also be overwhelming.

So some residents choose to abandon legitimate complaints rather than continue the fight, Sinclair said.

Many residents and their families did not fully understand their rights under the Retirement Villages Act, the Code of Practice, or their occupation right agreement.

That lack of knowledge could place residents at a significant disadvantage and discourage them from pursuing complaints that have genuine merit.

Sinclair said the absence of published decisions should not necessarily be interpreted as evidence that retirement village residents are universally satisfied.

Rather, it may indicate that disputes are being settled before they reach the hearing stage, that some residents are unwilling or unable to endure the process, or that others are unaware of the rights and remedies available to them, she said.

Michelle Palmer, executive director of the Retirement Villages Association, which represents owner/operators, said most families or estates got repayments relatively quickly.

Palmer backed Sinclair and said three-and-a-half years was “inexcusable”.

“How this was able to occur is difficult to understand without information about the circumstances.”

Palmer said if any resident or family sought assistance in resolving excessive times, the association would always do its best to help.

Families want repayment as quickly as possible after a resident leaves a village, and no one wants to see people facing unnecessary delays, Palmer said.

“In most cases, repayment timing is affected by the local real estate market rather than the village operator. The average repayment time is around seven to eight months, with less than 5% not paid out by 12 months.

“So most people do receive payment in a reasonable timeframe even if it is slower when the real estate market is soft.”

Her association supported changes to the complaints system. Residents and operators wanted an independent process that is simpler, faster and easier to use.

“It is also important to keep the number of complaints in context,” she said of Sinclair getting 168 complaints last year.

That was less than a third of 1% of total residents, Palmer calculated.

“Every complaint matters and should be dealt with quickly and fairly. But those figures, along with the fact that around 130 older New Zealanders move into villages each week, suggest the vast majority of residents are satisfied with village life.

“Residents also deserve more credit. The residents we talk to are informed and confident enough to raise concerns directly with their village when something is not right. They know what they value about village life, and they are willing to speak up when they think something can be improved,” Palmer said.

The Government is progressing law reforms with a new independent dispute resolution scheme, she noted.

A spokesman for the Retirement Commission said although it published decisions on its website, it did not operate as a complaints authority or ombudsman.

It does not have the power to independently investigate or resolve disputes.

“Instead, our role is to monitor how the system is working, collect data, identify trends, and inform both the Government and the public.

“As part of this role, we receive regular reporting from retirement village operators on the complaints they handle, including volumes, outcomes, and how issues are resolved, which helps us build a picture of how the system is functioning,” he said.

The commission also knew the complaints process could be difficult to navigate and isn’t working as effectively as it should.

So it recommended to the Government that it be redesigned as part of the broader review of the retirement village law.

Last year, the commission set out clear guidance on what a better, more accessible process should look like.

That work is informing the legislative review underway, the spokesman said.

Anne Gibson has been the Herald’s property editor for 26 years, written books and covered property extensively here and overseas.