Retirement village residents billed $100 for job replacing $5.80 toilet washer

Residents of a South Island village were surprised to get the $100 invoice. Photo / supplied

An elderly couple living in a retirement village got a $100 bill for a job replacing a $5.80 washer to fix their toilet.

Nigel Matthews of the Retirement Village Residents Association which represents those living in villages, said the couple who live in a South Island village were surprised by the bill.

“If they had rented the property, the landlord would have footed the bill. They’d never have been in that position where they even had to pay,” Matthews said.

Graham Wilkinson, president of the Retirement Villages Association which represents owner/operators, raised questions about the situation.

“On the face of it, it might seem far too rich, but we continually get the association telling us such stories and then find out there is far more to it,” Wilkinson said.

His organisation could look into matters to try to get to the bottom of it.

“We would always be happy to investigate any issue of alleged unfairness or inappropriate charging and the like, but just like the case studies they have on their website and lots of other material, the association, unfortunately, listens to a lot of hearsay that has a different complexion - that is, the truth - once you look into matters further,” Wilkinson said.

Graham Wilkinson said his entity would be happy to investigate such complaints. Photo / Michael Craig

The washer bill case was highlighted in the association’s latest newsletter but Matthews said neither the couple nor the village were identified because of concerns about repercussions for those who had complained.

In the past where the association had provided identifying details of complaints, there had been negative repercussions for those involved, he said.

The toilet cistern is in the place lived in by the couple aged 91 and 86. They don’t own that place, they simply have a licence to occupy it. So the toilet has never been theirs - it’s owned by the village owner/operator.

Their cistern was continually running so they let reception at their village know and requested it be fixed.

The village’s policy is that a maintenance person is available for free to assist with most minor repairs, not exceeding 20 minutes, the newsletter explained.

“Although the toilet is the operator’s fixture, the village owner/operator justified the charge by saying that it would take longer than 20 minutes for the maintenance person to go out and source the washer - clearly they hadn’t heard of online ordering,” the association newsletter said.

“When asked why they don’t have some in stock, they responded by saying they have many different types of toilets and couldn’t be expected to carry stock for every type.

“We’d say the decision to not standardise toilet fittings is not the residents’ fault. Why some village residents have to pay for repairs of an operator’s chattels and fixtures when a rental tenant doesn’t, is unfair and makes no sense. Let’s make sure this gets sorted in the legislative review,” the newsletter said, highlighting a long-term push for amendments to the Retirement Village Residents Act.

Matthews said New Zealand’s residential tenants had laws giving them more protection than retirement village residents.

“If these people had been renting, their landlord would have been by law bound to service the toilet and pay for the washer. This is in a premium high-end village with weekly fees of more than $100 and people have paid significant sums of seven or eight figures to buy in. Yet they get charged like this?” he asked.

Village residents can’t paint the homes they live in, or make major changes.

Operators say moving into a village is like owning your own home “but it’s not”, Matthews said.

Consumer NZ has found retirement village contracts unfair in terms of repairs of village chattels.

“As well as missing out on any capital gain, residents can face other significant costs. Our review found several contracts made residents liable for the cost of repairs to appliances and other items in their unit, even though they don’t own them,” Consumer NZ said.

One company gave residents just one month from the date the agreement commences to advise “in writing” of any repairs needed.

“After that, you have to pay for repairs and maintenance to the unit’s interior, including to the stove, garage doors, plumbing and electrical fittings,” Consumer NZ said.

That one company said it was common in the industry for residents to be responsible for the maintenance of their unit’s interior.

Consumer NZ wants the law changed: “We think these kinds of terms are hard to defend. They also conflict with residents’ rights under the Consumer Guarantees Act to receive goods and services of a reasonable standard. If the oven in your unit fails, the village should wear the cost.

“While contracts can hold residents liable for repairs to the villages’ chattels, the six contracts we reviewed stated the village won’t take any responsibility for damage to your possessions. In our view, these clauses risk misleading consumers about their rights: if the village caused the damage, it should pay for repairs,” Consumer NZ says.

Last month, the Commerce Commission began an investigation into the multi-billion dollar retirement village sector at the same time as a ministry has the sector under the spotlight for its practices.

The commission confirmed its involvement after long-standing complaints from the Retirement Village Residents Association, Consumer NZ and others.

“We have received complaints and we are commencing an investigation into whether there are any potential issues under the Fair Trading Act,” a commission spokesperson said in May.

In December, Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development announced an investigation after widespread calls for change.

Brian Peat, association president, said: “We’re simply asking for fairness and consumer protection. We, along with Consumer NZ, believe some clauses are not fair - and will not stand up to scrutiny.”

Anne Gibson has been the Herald’s property editor for 23 years, having won many awards, written books, founded the National Business Review’s property section in 1985 and covered property extensively here and overseas. She joined the Herald in 2000.